willy

I am impressed at your growth Rightwinger. You only called me weak and just last week I am sure you would have used girly man. Use the search function, and look up some of my posts. The fact is the Liberal party would not want me. I don’t consider myself a centrist and I am a double whammy, fiscal and social conservative. Does it not concern you that a right winger like myself still finds your views offensive? At any point does this not lead you to have a little self inspection? Guess not 1. Carefully considered and thought out points of view are not weak, they are rational. 2. Understanding others points of view acts to clarify ones own beliefs and if they are still valid acts to strengthen ones resolve.

Why just white Canadians? I live in Vancouver and I am not the only immigrant here. I was born here and yet I don't have the same rights as someone who has a generational line that predates mine. Please don't elevate white people into something they are not. White people like anyone else are just active players in a dynamic country that has an evolving culture and a progressive history. White people are not a homogenous group that pulls the strings. In a multi cultural country like ours it is ridiculous to still define issues based on skin colour. Economic and political class maybe. I do understand that the Indian act has made a very proud culture into a separate class in our Canadian society. This separation is taking very talented people with the potential to work, live, and prosper and made many dependent on the federal government. The policies have separated the reserves from the rest of the community and inhibited the globalization with the rest of the country. Culture is not a static phenomena and the institutionalized treatment of the first nations is a national shame. The government practices are propagating a second class citizenship for first nations. If you use stats on education, alcoholism, criminality etc. the policy that has existed is not working. (Not all native groups experience the same level of social problems and this is not meant to label or stigmatize them) Treaties need to be signed, and the management of first nations needs to end. The individuals that make up these communities should receive property rights, compensation and then the separate status needs to end yesterday.

Good question, sometimes I wonder. At times this forum can inform, August and Hugo have shared in the past in way that made me reexamine my point of view. I must admit sometimes it is to inform, but I doubt that information transfer happens. The filters that I have and those that I see share on these forums are thick(filters) to say the least. How many will admit that they gained a new respect for those that didn't support their point of view? Aw and then there is those that claim to support the same party that you do and all you can do is apologize for them. Rightwinger I am talking about you. I did stop posting for a while because of the lack of respectful in the discussion. I found myself mud slinging and I didn't like it. The anti Christian stuff gets under my skin at times. So why do I post, because this forum is the closest thing I can find to have varied views that actually talk about politics. I think it is valuable to participate in discussions across points of view, and I guess the down side is being offended much of the time. Oh well. If we had squares in Canada like they do in London, where we would go and debate our politics I would be out doing it in person.

Like many other problems, the amount of money is not a good measure of effect. Unfortunately under this government we have not achieved either in international aid.(money or effect) Put simply we spend less and the money we do spend is wasted. Our friends on the left on this forum seem to value the lives in our boarders more than those in disadvantaged areas like Africa. Why, where you were born should matter, I don’t know? We are a rich country. It takes work and diligence and a little luck but we are fortunate. I would suggest it isn’t because we deserve it. A person who believes that you should ignore the world problems confuses me to no end. We may not have a responsibility but we have an opportunity. When we use money wisely peoples lives are saved from hunger and if we are real good a few may get an education. The seeds for future stability lie in long term visionaries who do what they can. I would never suggest that we can solve the world tragedies but by doing nothing we add to their severity and the suffering. How we impact these areas and offer our aid is all based on political ideology. IMO we should support the many caring NGO’s well placed to offer food, clean water and education to areas that are devastated by war and drought. Our government many times wastes our money by creating new organizations and building Canadian jobs that eat up 80% of the resources and leave little impact. This should not happen.

Who is independent?

TTS from your comments I can only deduce by reason that you are so old that you have personally witnessed evolution. If you are not that old and as a reasonable person you must realize that you have a limited understanding of evolution and then you must hold some of your firmly held beliefs by faith. As I understand faith it is not a blind belief in the unbelievable but the acknowledgment that we don't know everything and by faith hold onto a belief based on our ability to understand reality.

TTS you claimed the other day not to hate Conservatives, but your insistence on calling names and attach derogatory tags to many of your comments. This shows a lack of integrity. When you do this I get a strong erg to then start with the wacky Jack comments and the Fiberals stuff. It is not useful. At times I read comments from you that are thoughtful, why must you lower your debate? Your really don’t want to sound like Rightwinger do you?

It is much simpler than it might first seem. You see Jack isn't that noble he is just playing politics. In BC where Grewal is from, the NDP has the best chances of gaining seats in the next election. Jack is just trying to play regional politics. Grewal for those not from these parts represents a strong provincial NDP riding.

Freedom is an interesting term. Does freedom mean, do what ever you want? This would inherently inhibit other individual’s freedoms as what you want is not necessarily what someone else wants. Whenever someone gains a freedom they have limited other freedoms. For instance we have the freedom to drive a car under restrictions; if the rules of the road are not followed we loose are freedom because it is no longer safe (we may loose it by force or consequence). So in the so called grey areas we have a problem because the absence of limitations can limit freedom as much as the rules that bound our decisions. So in making the rules around issues like Marriage a great concern comes from one side on the implications of not holding on to the ideal notion of family, even if it is a romantic notion that is never achieved. And the other side of the issue has great concern over the impact of the judgment implied by the ideal. The freedom implied by the first is for the promotion of a secure, loving, committed male and female influence in child rearing and the promotion of a community based on these family values. So what is the freedom hoped to gain in this, it is having the best possible social environment to base the learning and development of future generations. In essence to improve the root cause of many social problems by promoting a unique family unit that is ideal for more than just the sexual orientation of the parents. The other side of the coin has obvious valid concerns and will also limit freedom. How do we treat those that are different? As a government that represents a modern civil society we would also want to promote equality, understanding and respect for others and their beliefs. All people should be encouraged to enjoy the benefits of having committed long term binding relationships. When you apply this to changing societal institutions one must look with caution and make incremental change. As you make a change it will have an impact on someone’s freedom. Marriage has changed over the years, (for some good reasons) but the ever increasing divorce rate and the disposable relationships of our culture are having an impact. I don’t presume to know what is best, but I do recognize the dynamics of our cultural institutions have vast impacts on the relations that govern our lives and should be changed with very cautious consideration.

Can you work harder then? I have met the man and found him, to be engaging, funny and very bright. You sir should be fired because he has been getting killed all week. I will have to talk to the hiring crew in the party and make sure the screening is more stringent.

It may be a first but I agree TTS. Now of all the things that are possible to legislate on in Ottawa is this really what it always has to come down to SSM. Good and meaningful discussions that we can have: Victims rights Parliamentary reform Provincial rights/separation of powers Government delivery of services vs. NGOs or private partnerships Wow all the good disagreements we can have that will actually impact the majority of our lives.

Right winger, I wish we had that many members but at the last leadership race we had just over 250 000 active members. I think you will find 2.5 million is the people who have ever been members, like at MacDonald’s serving 2.5 billion. Don't fret though; at 250 000 we have the most members of any political party in Canada. Our national convention had twice as many delegates than our closest competitor. TTS, I was at that convention and for what it is worth I saw a broad based party. The largest contingent of members was from Ontario with over 1000 from that one province. The one area of growth the party needs to focus on is Quebec which only had 350 delegates, but that is why we were in Montreal. While in Montreal I had a good conversation with a group of members for Vancouver center. I was encouraged to learn that they were gay and married. I was told that while they didn’t agree with all the issue on the table they felt that they were respected and had the ability to fight for what they thought was right. The same sex vote was close and as far a I know the people I met are still working hard to build our party. Hey TTS don't hate us because you aint us. Hug a Conservative it might feel good and I promise most of us don't bite. Right winger may bite you. You might want to ask him before you give him a hug. Sorry it is Friday and I should have already gone to happy hour.

BD, All I was saying is that each candidate should be evaluated based on their personal merit. They should not be painted with a wide brush. All Christians don't approach politics the same way. Just as any other definable group does think with one mind. When a candidate manipulates the system they should not be supported or elected in any party. The Liberals have had similar problems with some of the ethnic communities having mass sign ups. The challenge for the Conservatives is with the democratic principles they hold themselves to. At the last convention the members voted to extend membership voting rights out to 45 days. This does not fix the challenge but it is a start. The only real fix is to maintain a broad based large membership in all 308 ridings. Not an easy fix. The Conservatives will have a few candidates that get in this way. They are not likely to get elected. And in some ridings a social conservative best reflects the views of the majority of constituents. The Conservative Party does have over 200 000 members and this does help minimize the frequency of these events. My concern is when a reporter finds every Christian running and makes prejudice decisions about who and what they are. I have no doubt that the Liberal war room did a background check on all the nominations and fed this story to the G&M. This is part of their strategy to paint the Party in a negative light. I hope the Christian MPs from the Liberal party stand up and say no to these divisive tactics.

What politician does not have a point of view or policy agenda? If they really have a narrow focus on a single issue they won’t get elected.

So a dozen Christians will run for the Conservatives. Is it okay they have Jews, Muslims and Hindus run as well? I heard they had some secular libertarians running and an agnostic. This is bigotry. Look at the individuals and their merits. If the ridings vote them in I guess they deserve the right to represent that riding. If not they don't. John Weston that will be running in Reynolds old riding and is a great example of a candidate with great merits that happens to be Christian. Until I read the media today I did not know he was a Christian. I knew he was working hard for a few months to sign up new members and he has an impressive background in aboriginal legal issues. I have met him many times and his faith has never come up. He is a strong candidate and if he does not make his faith a political issue the media shouldn’t. Say isn't our PM a Catholic?

Right winger, why did you have to go and have me agree with Black Dog. I agree. When I started this thread, I had read a number of threads that were insulting to the Party I belong too and to the people I associate myself with. Unfortunately Rightwinger you make it impossible for me to defend you. Please read your posts and realize that your approach is offensive and mean spirited. I personally don't think those of opposite political ideologies are out to destroy this country. They firmly believe they have answers to the problems we face. What we need is honest dialogue about the best course of action. I don't sway many opinions on this forum but I do not think calling people names does any good. Please stop reinforcing all things people fear of those right of center. The satire I was using was meant to express my frustration with posters like yourself, that were aiming at my political beliefs. The irony is that the group of individuals I defend was one that thought it bright to attack me. Very sad. It makes me very :angry: when I have to agree with Black Dog so please don't do it again.

I will start: Right winger: Means very bad person. Unthinking, dinasour, who hates Canada and may even wish to be AMERICAN. Liberal: All things good and noble. Likes old people and small childern. Conservative: See right winger. NDPer: Liberal but even better.

Today's score Economic Left/Right: 0.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26 Many moons ago score I got Economic Left/Right: 1.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56 So does this mean I am moderating or that I am dithering?

Well if PMPM said so.

Eureka, First off, it was my high school that Orchard was speaking at and my thoughts on politics have matured. To be clear he was working on the No campaign and came off like a Kook. He switched my vote to yes. Orchard had 10% support in the leadership race. Over the years he signed up a very loyal following into the party. They even had a name the Orchardits. His politics are out of step with as I can tell every political party. They were focused on revisiting free trade and building localized green economies.

How much clearer can one be. The word marriage as was passed by the Liberals less than two years ago will continue to be one man and one woman. The extension of civil rights to SS couples should and will be passed. What is hidden? Is this your wedge. If it is, you get your vote. I get mine and elections will sort it out.

Yes agreed, the government, the institution is secular, but the people who make decisions, push the paper and make the laws have values influenced by varied world religions or lack there of. A secular institution can administer tax benefits or subsides to groups that are not secular. Many have the tag NGO and they do much of the good work in our country and around the world. Feeding lines in the big cities to world hunger groups like World Vision. They do great work. These groups should not be co-opted by government or administered but as a tax payer if the government can enhance there efforts from time to time, I say go for it.

Yes Black Dog, we all know you disagree with this position and it has been debated to death on this site. I was asked a question and I answered it. I am no lawyer, are you. Each party has a number of people who are and for any legislation to go through the house it would have to stand up to legal scrutiny.

Quick answer NO. The party has stated policy not to touch the abortion debate and with SSM the party has moved that all rights and privileges be extended to SS couples in legal unions. This is as far as the party can go without alienating a key base of supporters. This base group is already not comfortable with the moderation of the party and the buck stops with the word Marriage. On the bright side this position in other polls was shown to enjoy the support of 54% of all Canadians.

Your interpretation of this poll is questionable. This is just one poll at one point in time. The reason the Conservatives don't change after every poll is because they aren't Liberals. If I was an advisor to the Conservatives, I would suggest that they move forward: • Be consistent over time and rise above the name calling • Focus on the insufficient policies of the government • Don't use the house for daily Gomery Questions • Wait and prepare for an election in the winter • Start working face-to-face now and keep going until after we have an election • Spend some time building the caucus as a team, share some of the leadership The polls are volatile and for a little while don't pay much attention to them. There is a lag between events, action and public perception. Allow the next strategy to work for a while. We are at least 6 months from an election.