Canada's Federal Conservatives

[maplesyrup]

Yesterday, January 10th, was Sir John A Macdonald's birthday. If he was alive today, what would he think?

If he was alive today, he would be 189 years old

'John A. Macdonald was Canada's first prime minister, and was knighted for his efforts in bringing about Confederation. His role in creating Canada, and the realization of his dream to build a transcontinental railway, have fixed his place as a nation-builder in Canadian history.'

What does the A in hs name stands for ?

What city he was born in ?

Was he married, and if so, how many wives did he have?

Check the website below for most of the answers.

http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/2/18/h18-2360-e.html

'John A. Macdonald was Canada's first prime minister, and was knighted for his efforts in bringing about Confederation. His role in creating Canada, and the realization of his dream to build a transcontinental railway, have fixed his place as a nation-builder in Canadian history.'

Edited January 11, 2004 by maplesyrup

[maplesyrup]

Yesterday the former Alliance leader Stephen Harper announced his candidacy for the leadership of the new Consrvative Party, with a good speech.

Around the same time we have:

-former PC Jim Prentice withdrawing from the leadership race

-former PC leader Peter MacKay announces that he will not be seeking the leadership

-the only PC MP from Quebec Andre Bachand announced today that he is bolting the party to sit as a Independent, and is leaving politics altogther after the the next election. Bachand said at his news conference that he is mourning the death of the PC party.

-tomorrow PC MP Keith Martin ihas called a press conference. Rumours are that he is bolting as well, perhaps to the Liberals.

-Orchard and Stevens are in the courts to bring back the PC party

-another group has made a formal application to Canada's Chief Electoral Officer to re-establish the PC party

-Former Prime minister Joe Clark has opted out of the new Conservative party

-and there is the situation of New Brunswick MP John Herron -what is his future?

Today there is a perception problem that the Conservative party is a takeover of the Progressive Conservative party by Stephan Harper and the Canadian Alliance.

These optics might be overcome if someone besides Harper is chosen as leader.

It doesn't matter in this context what your own personal beliefs or aspirations are. What counts here is what is marketable to the Canadian citizens, the voters in the next election.

In politics however things can change very quickly. So we will wait and see what happens concerning the other possible candidates.

Initially I thought that if Bernard Lord entered the race, the two finalists would be Lord and Strahl. Strahl is well liked and might end up being the compromise candidate in the end, should he decide to run.

Edited January 13, 2004 by maplesyrup

[Neal.F.]

It seems to me that the new Conservative Party is headed for disaster.

Heavy hitters in the Party, including Ralph Klein and Mike Harris, not to mention Bill Davis, Brian Mulroney and others are lining up behind Belinda Stronach's leadership bid.

Should this happen, I think that in spite of what appeared to be a commanding lead held by Stephen Harper (no friend of Christians), that the media will do whatever it can to make Harper look like an idiot and get Stronach elected leader. It has already started. Look at todays Globe which features Marge Delahunty from "this Hour has 22 minutes" planting a smooch on Harper's mouth, leaving a huge , ridiculous looking circle of red lipstick! This is a real possibility since, under the delegated system that was agreed to by the two parties, ridings in Quebec and Ontario will have disproportionate strength with respect to their feeble membership levels, vis-a-vis western ridings.

Should Ms. Stronach be elected leader, I think that social conservatives will leave the party, disgruntled and in droves. Most Reformers are not overly trusting of Bay Street magnates, nor do the particularly relish the idea of a woman with two failed marriages and a rumoured tryst with a married man (Bill Clinton, so the rumour goes.) leading the party. She is known to be a supporter of gay rights. Her views on abortion are not widely known, and I am not, as of yet , privy to them, though I have my suspicions that we'd get the pat answer of "I personally don't agree with it, but I believe in Other women's rights to make decisions concerning their own bodies".

Nevertheless, it seems that no matter who wins, the philosophical divisions on life issues , though fiscal priorities are by and large compatible will drive a wedge through the parties. The Progressives ( I believe they only put up with Elsie Wayne because of 1993) can't live with the social conservative wing, and the Reformers will not be able to reconcile themselves to running on a socially liberal agenda.

If Stronach does win, we are looking at a massive Liberal majority with the possibility of either a NDP or Bloc opposition.

The Bachand, Clark and Herron issues are of no real consequence.

[Morgan]

Well said, Neal.

And your previous description of Belinda Stronach as a Paul Martin in a skirt is very apropos. If elected PC leader, she will fracture the unification as soon as she opens her yap about abortion, gay marriage, immigration reform. Let's face it. Stronach is yet another tycoon with a noblesse oblige mindset. She and Paul Martin and Maurice Strong probably see each other at the same cocktail parties.

Why don't these Red Tories just join the LPOC? Why in heavens can't they be honest with themselves? You can't be a fiscal conservative & social liberal and still call yourself a conservative. That's nonsense. The latter impacts the former.

What looked so hopeful just a month ago is now pretty depressing. The media will embrace Belinda as own of their own "elite" [gosh I hate that word, it confers nobility to journalist flunkies) and Harper will get shafted. Maybe Harper should immigrate to the USA and run as a Republican. If Stronach wins the PC leadership, IMO, the conservative party is dead. The PC's will continue to be lap dogs of the LPOC as they were under Joe ouch Clark.

Frank Stronach, Belinda's rich poppa, ran as a federal Liberal candidate. As well Frank Stronach gave financial support to Brian Tobin's campaign to become leader of the LPOC. That's Belinda's upbringing in one sentence-she was raised in a high profile Liberal family. And as an adult she picks another high profile liberal as a close friend...none other than Billy Jeff Clinton. What does that tell you about her "inner" political ideology?

This is a sad turn of events, indeed.

[Neal.F.]

Yep, truly sad indeed. Canada is to become a one party state, it would seem.

Credit for the "Paul Martin in a cocktail dress" rightly belongs to Tony Clement's people, though I will take credit for calling her the Paris Hilton of Canadian politics.

More and more I think Prince Metternich (another poster here) was right when he said that the CA should have fought out one more election just to ensure the death of the PC party of Canada.

Your statement that one cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative and CALL oneself a conservative cannot be repeated often enough.

What we saw on the front page of the Globe today is just the beginning of what Harper will face this campaign, and it will not be the Federal Liberal party behind the character assassinations, but rather the PROGRESSIVE conservatives. They will attempt to hold him up to ridicule, just as the Libs did to Stock Day, only since they won't be able to sink him on what he says, they will use the lens of a camera and get him in any unflattering position they can. Meanwhile Paris Hilton, who has nothing worthwhile to say will be photographed at her very best.

[Pellaken]

Harper is a social conservative

if he wins, social conservatives will run the party, and Jack Layton will become the leader of the opposition

Stronach is an economic conservtive

if she wins, some social conservatives will leave, but she will gain many more votes, and may beat paul martin (her company dosent cheat) and the NDP will be devestated

....

go harper!

[PC4EVER]

What does Canada wants ?

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that Canadians will ever elect a social and fiscal conservatives party. Even Harper is acknowleging that by taking his platform to more center policies.

So, now, you sound like the Red tories saying, if it's not my candidate, I am leaving.

I thought the merger was to compromise in between our two views ? Is it possible to find something in the meddle and be attractive to more Canadians ?

The problem is who is best position to lead the party ? Those who think that it is Harper have to realize that he is carrying a lot of negative baggage.

"

PUBLICATION: The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal DATE: 2004.01.13 SECTION: Opinion PAGE: A6 COLUMN: Editorials

Finding the right politician for job

We Believe: Stephen Harper carries damaged baggage into leadership race

Question: What do you think about Stephen Harper's candidacy for the federal Conservative party leadership?

Stephen Harper wants to lead the Conservative Party of Canada into the next federal election.

We wish him all the best upon his arrival in New Brunswick, but suggest this freshly minted party does not need a politician with such political baggage. Not former Tory leader Peter MacKay, and not Mr. Harper.

In the latter's case, it's simple: his entry into the leadership race carries the kind of political history that voters rarely overlook and embrace.

Many will view his candidacy as a confirmation that the merger with the federal Tories is no more than a takeover by the Canadian Alliance. Mr. Harper will be seen as the Canadian Alliance candidate. There's no hope of the new party becoming a political force in Quebec under Mr. Harper since they see "Canadian Alliance" as just another title for "Reform Party."

He will never live down stigmatizing Atlantic Canadians as "defeatist" - a certain problem for gaining support in this region.

And, we doubt the man who once referred to workers that came into the Alliance fold from other parties as "castoffs, retreads and traitors" could be entrusted to not only bring peace within the Conservative ranks, but build the party into a viable option to the Liberals.

The bottom line: a Conservative Party of Canada under

Mr. Harper will at best, be an opposition party.

The Conservatives don't need a politician they can't sell nationally. They need a leader who can ignite a movement across our nation to reinvent the political right and make it an alternative to the Liberals, especially in Quebec.

Today, Paul Martin is a popular Liberal prime minister who leads a strong party with deep pockets. But honeymoons don't last forever. Expectations of this prime minster are so high that a popularity crash is inevitable.

Already, it appears the New Democrats under Jack Layton are poised to make moderate gains. Thus, the groundwork the Conservatives lay this year - selecting a leader the majority of Canadians respect and putting in place a platform and policies that the Conservative Party of Canada can stamp as its own and not disguised as an Alliance makeover - are crucial components to this country's political landscape.

When Conservatives present their policies to Canadians, it must be done in a courageous manner - that the party will actually attempt to win the next federal election, should it be called this spring. With so much at stake, it makes no sense to select a leader with Mr. Harper's unwinnable baggage. "

For me, Harper is not the solution. We have to find someone who is able to carry western revendications and also reflected what Canadians want ?

And I think it should be somewhere in between !

[Pellaken]

no extremist right or left winger will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, I say again, NEVER will become Prime Minister

Social Conservatisim and Economic Socalisim are consitered extreme by most. Like it or not, if you are a social conservative, you will never have a Prime Minister who agrees with you. Same goes for Socalists.

[Neal.F.]

Never say never. The day will come , I assure you, when the chickens hatched from the disastrous socially liberal policies followed by sucessive governments since that arrogant twit trudeau will come home to roost.

People will then be faced with some stark choices, and will then, if they have even a shred of common sense left, elect a government that will reverse the social liberalism that is rotting this once great country to the core.

[Brainiac]

What the new conservative party has to do for this coming election is set the groundwork for their newly merged party to appear merged and seperate from any extreme ideas. So that in the election to follow the coming one they will have improved their perception amongst voters. Electing Stronach as leader may actually be a wise choice at the moment to ensure this future success. To have a socially conservative leader this early in the parties life will surely spell disaster. Once this new party is pegged with the 'crazy social con' label it will be absolutley useless. Social Conservatives need to bide their time and be patient. If not they might as well just form Alliance part two and continue to split the conservative vote.

[Neal.F.]

It's the social liberals that I call extremist.

There is nothing so extreme as promoting the butchery of the unborn as a

means to avoid the consequences of ones actions. Isn't the wonton taking of

innocent life a form of neanderthal barbarism and thus extremism? What about the promotion of

the homosexual lifestyle? Isn't promoting a dangerous behaviour which cuts

lifespans in half, and urges primitive animalisticic unrestrained sexuality,

ie: promiscuity? Isn't THAT extremist?

I think the left has taken a page from Orwell:

"War is peace" "Freedom is Slavery" ""Ignorance is Strength" to which they add "Moderation is extremism"

Stronach would be a mistake, since it would result in a 1993 style debacle, there wouldn't be a "next election"

Without the so-cons in their coalition, conservtaives cannot form a government.

[Morgan]

Brainiac,

What would differentiate a PC party led by a Red Tory like Stronach from the LPOC led by a fiscal conservative like Martin? Answer: no difference

Voters would continue to vote LPOC because liberals are familiar but a Red Tory led conservative party, while it's a similar product, is untested.

I think a great segment of Canadian voters are looking for a change. They are PO'd with social liberalism as symbolized by the gay marriage and pot decriminalization issues.

A Harper led conservative party would offer a real change, a genuine new conservative choice. But a Stronach led conservative party would not...same old same old bland Red Tory conservatism...Stronach believes in gay marriage and I'll wager she supports legalizing pot. Gay marriage had everyone up in arms this year. I think Harper could take full advantage of that voter outrage and the gay marriage issue alone, if nothing else, could win many new ridings for conservatives under Harper's leadership.

The Red Tories should run under the LPOC banner. That's the party Red Tories are aligned with philosophically. For them to pretend they are "conservatives" is ridiculous.

[maplesyrup]

Interesting timing for the Keith Martin announcement of his defection.

It appears that it might happen on the same day that the warrants in relation to the RCMP raid on the BC Legislature are being unsealed in BC

Apparently Martin is first going to sit as an Independent, and then run for the Liberal nomination in his riding.

Martin will be announcing today at 1 PM (ET)

-----------------------------------------------

'Bad day for new Conservatives

Bachand bows out. Right-wing party has no future here, says sole Tory MP from Quebec'

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgaz...23-BD20C067056A

'Warning there is no future for a right-wing party in Quebec, the only Progressive Conservative from this province to win a seat in the House of Commons is quitting politics.

Holding back tears, André Bachand, 42, announced that - after completing his term as an independent MP - he will sit out the next election.'

-----------------

Here's more fodder for the CBC fans, NOT. Personally I think the National Post needs to lighten up and get a sense of humour. My goodness.

'Harper stunt smacks of CBC bias'

by Gerry Nicholls in the National Post

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...64-dbb50ed67054

To Morgan below.

Actually liberal is not a derogatory word, nor is conservative, for that matter. Just folks with a different perspective about things.

By focusing on non-substantive issues like the CBC, the Conservative party could end up handing the Liberals the biggest majority any party has ever had in the history of Canadian politics. Some people just don't get it, there is no room in Canada for the Republican Party. And actually I did read the whole article, including the part where the author identified himself as Harper's buddy. Strange that you forgot to mention that.

Edited January 14, 2004 by maplesyrup

[Neal.F.]

I hope the weasel gets the drubbing he so richly deserves.

I think he is going to have to answer for alot more than many of them: He'd a medical doctor, yet stands for the promotoion of a lifestyle (homosexual) which statistically cut the average lifespan in half, he beleives that society should effectively sanction SMOKING POT, by legalizing it, and worst of all, after having taken an oath to do whetever one can to preserve life, and to refrain from anything that shortens it (Hyppocratic oath) he approves of abortion, a surgery that cures nothing, and where 50% of patients end up dead!

I hope he gets his liberal ass kicked.

[Morgan]

maplesyrup said:

Here's more fodder for the CBC fans, NOT. Personally I think the National Post needs to lighten up and get a sense of humour. My goodness.

It's funny to a liberal when Harper is ridiculed by statist run CBC.

But, as the article points out and which obviously you did not read past the headline, liberals would not think the stunt was so funny if the same thing happened to Paul Martin. In fact, Walsh would likely have been fired.

If you like that kind of CBC humour, pay for it on your own dime. That's Gerry Nicholls' point...privatize CBC and let subscribers like you pay for CBC's yuks.

[Rob1963]

... yet stands for the promotoion of a lifestyle (homosexual) which statistically cut the average lifespan in half, he beleives that society should effectively sanction SMOKING POT, by legalizing it, and worst of all, after having taken an oath to do whetever one can to preserve life, and to refrain from anything that shortens it (Hyppocratic oath) he approves of abortion, a surgery that cures nothing, and where 50% of patients end up dead!

I hope he gets his liberal ass kicked.

What is THAT if not a completely neanderthal, bigoted post!!! Where do you get the stats to say that a homosexual lifestyle cuts the average lifespan in half. Are you saying that if it weren't for homosexuals, the average lifespan would be 140 or so? Or are you saying that the average lifestyle of a homosexual is 35 or so? Either way, completely idiotic.

By the way, I hope the (I guess I won't go there...)

Idiotic, neanderthal, bigoted, Canadian Alliance, er... Conservative Party

[Kiraly]

Where do you get the stats to say that a homosexual lifestyle cuts the average lifespan in half. Are you saying that if it weren't for homosexuals, the average lifespan would be 140 or so? Or are you saying that the average lifestyle of a homosexual is 35 or so?

I have also heard that the average lifespan of a homosexual is considerably shorter than a heterosexual.

However, if that is their lifestyle choice, so be it. I'm not too concerned if they pass on earlier than other segments of the population.

[Neal.F.]

This post is neither neanderthal, nor bigotted. It is a FACT that the lifespan of the average homosexual is 41 years. It drops to 39 when AIDS is factored in. The average male lives 74 years.

I can reel off a host of statistics on STDs which reduce quality and quantity of life, and theb treatment of which, cost our medical system (read: taxpayers) a fortune.

The document, which I am in the process of locating, and will post latrer if someone else does not do it before me, will also tell about the various acts that homosexuals engage in which cause physiological dmage, and that by their very nature, are conducive to the spread of disease.

What is neanderthal is the PRIMITIVE idea that seems to pervade this society, that sexual promiscuity (straight and gay) is one's RIGHT.

And you want society to give this perverted lifestyle its blessing? THAT is neanderthal.

[Neal.F.]

I have also heard that the average lifespan of a homosexual is considerably shorter than a heterosexual.

However, if that is their lifestyle choice, so be it. I'm not too concerned if they pass on earlier than other segments of the population.

Kanada Dry,

Even if yopu are not concerned if they pass on sooner, you must appreciate the costs that their lifestyle adds to the medical system tab.

Still, if you have any compassion on these people whatsoever, one cannot support libertarian measures that facilitate, and even enshrine such lifestyles. Heck, in some schools they are even teaching that it's OK to be gay!

It isn't. And there is a way out, as many former homosexuals can testify. It is not easy, but it is doable. Quitting smoking isn't easy, nor is quitting drinking or gambling, but it can be done.

Giving homosexuality society's blessing is the wrong message to send.

[Rob1963]

I'm sure that if you seperate out any one of a host of lifestyle choices you can get similar statistics. ie smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, junk food addicts, speed demons... are you going to demonize everyone one by one? Come on.

And who was talking about promiscuity? Promiscuity is 'practised' by all groups of people

- STD's are not exclusive to Homosexuals

- What gives you the right to say that homosexuality is right or wrong? Perverse or not?

- smoking also costs the healthcare system a lot (I would venture a lot more than homosexually related STD's)

- Who is giving Homosexuality society's blessing? I say live and let live.

[Brainiac]

Brainiac,

What would differentiate a PC party led by a Red Tory like Stronach from the LPOC led by a fiscal conservative like Martin? Answer: no difference

The difference is that they would have a choice of who to vote for. Many people didn't see the old Alliance as a viable alternative to Chretien, so they voted for Chretien. That is what I think might happen if Harper wins the leadership this early in the parties lifetime. It is going to take time to shake off the mistakes made by certain Reform/Alliance members of the past. There is no doubt in my mind that people want change, it is just a matter of making that change a little more 'safe' so that they feel good throwing their votes in a particular direction. Harper is doing well when he tries to pain the Liberals as the party of the wealthy and not the 'common man'.

Voters would continue to vote LPOC because liberals are familiar but a Red Tory led conservative party, while it's a similar product, is untested.

Untested, but a seemingly safe alternative.

A Harper led conservative party would offer a real change, a genuine new conservative choice.

I don't disagree, I just think he needs time to shed the baggage of his previous party. I actually think he would make a great leader, but I think people in the urban areas (where most of the votes are) need time to see him grow out of the old stereotypes that dogged his old party. He is seemingly unsmearable(is that a word?), and he seems to think before he speaks...all excellent indicators that the Liberals will have a difficult time smearing his personal reputation...however, they will have no trouble smearing his former party and that could send Harper into political oblivion. As for Harper using the gay marriage thing for political leverage, I don't think it will work...Martin can do the exact same thing...after all he had nothing to do with the original bill, it was his 'crazy' predecessor.

I think that there is a need for some long term strategy, and try to resist the quick fix.

[maplesyrup]

http://www.garth.ca/

-------------------

John Koury to challenge Keith Martin

Edited January 14, 2004 by maplesyrup

[Morgan]

Brainiac said:

As for Harper using the gay marriage thing for political leverage, I don't think it will work...Martin can do the exact same thing...after all he had nothing to do with the original bill, it was his 'crazy' predecessor.

I think you speak with forked tongue, Brainiac.

The gay marriage issue was Harper's finest hour. He spoke for the majority of Canadians, regardless of the 50/50 split myth that the media elites are desperately trying to promote.

Furthermore, Harper clearly showed up the high handed elitist arrogance of the close leftist brothers, the NDP and LPOC, who were going to push through the bill come hell or high water using every trick in the parliamentary book.

Harper also used this issue to show that the left wing politicians are using their elitist compadres, the unelected Supreme Court justices to pass left wing legislation.

Martin could never get the same political leverage out of the gay marriage issue as Harper and the PC's who are you trying to kid?

Martin agreed with the gay marriage bill for heavens sake and now is frantically trying to buy time by expanding the questions sent to the Supreme Court so their reply will come back AFTER the election and so it does not become an election issue that Harper could use. Martin would not have worry at all if anyone but Harper becomes leader of the PC's. And that's why CBC and the other media elites are trying to promote Stronach. She's on the same page as Paul Martin.

Gay marriage is Martin's Achilles Heel and only a social conservative like Harper can use it to full advantage. Martin knows it, everyone knows it.

Anyone but Harper as PC leader and the PC's have no chance to putting a significant dent in the number of seats won from the LPOC and NDP.

#1.Martin's gay marriage Achilles Heel Dec.12/03 Canadian Press.

Incoming prime minister Paul Martin is considering changes to a legal reference on gay marriage now before Canada's top court, sources say - a move that could delay controversial new legislation until after the next federal election.

"There's been active interest from Paul Martin and his advisers in hearing suggestions on how the questions might be modified," said a Liberal MP who did not wish to be named. Another Liberal MP, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said changing the reference would be one way of side-stepping the sensitive issue until after a federal vote expected this spring.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who retires Friday, referred draft legislation that would legalize gay weddings to the top court. Three questions have been asked to ensure the legislation would pass constitutional tests and not force religious groups to perform unions against their will. Under the draft legislation, the century-old union "between one man and one woman" would be changed to the joining of two people.

Wide-ranging polls released last week to Liberal MPs showed public opinion remains almost equally divided on gay marriage.

The issue was flagged as a possibly damaging one in the upcoming federal election.

#2. Martin's attempt to hide from the gay marriage issue, Dec.30/03, Montreal Gazette.

Then came the year-end interviews. It's not clear how many Canadians rush through their turkey and stuffing so they can get to the TV in time to see the PM's talking head. But if at least some do, then maybe things will start looking up for the opposition. Maybe now they can hope for 40 or 50 seats.

They can take heart from two things: substance and appearance. In his interview with Peter Mansbridge, Martin looked decidedly uncomfortable.

On substance, the interviewers generally homed in on two tough social issues - gay marriage and marijuana. Martin's positions on both come across as major fudges.

One interviewer asked him how he personally felt about gay marriages. Was he comfortable with the idea? Evidently not, since he brushed aside any question of his personal feelings and went right to his policy position.

When the Charter of Rights speaks, he says, Canadians believe the law has to conform. So Parliament will formally legalize gay marriages? Well, not exactly.

Martin's experience is when significant sociological change is taking place, people feel more comfortable after they've been able to have their say about it. No doubt that's true.

But they feel even more comfortable if they have their say and get their way. With the country divided on gay marriage, that's not possible: Whatever happens, half of us will go away annoyed. Be that as it may, we're now going to have a national debate on gay marriage -as if we haven't been having a national debate about it for the last several years.

But if the charter has already spoken, what exactly will we be debating? If Martin asks the Supreme Court if civil unions would satisfy charter requirements of equal treatment, well, the learned justices will have a debate among themselves but the rest of us can only wait around until the court tells us what the charter has said. On marijuana, Martin's position is similarly "nuanced."

[PC4EVER]

[Martin would not have worry at all if anyone but Harper becomes leader of the PC's. QUOTE]

That's propably why they said they would prefer to see Harper as the leader of the new party for the next election. To get it in the harder way.

You know, you have to make the difference between the spin (what you or other like you to believe) and would happen based on common sense. If Harper is leading the CP, it brings the new party at the farest right that could be possible in Canada. So it give to the Liberals all the room in the right center needed to win easily the next election again.

So, social conservatives has to make a decision. Either they join to a party who is more social progressive and we have a chance to win something. Or you keep you platform and we will stay in the opposition forever.

[Neal.F.]

So, social conservatives has to make a decision. Either they join to a party who is more social progressive and we have a chance to win something. Or you keep you platform and we will stay in the opposition forever.

So what you're telling us is to stay on the plantation and be good little slaves.....

Play nice, and maybe we'll toss you a bone.....

-------------

Why in hell should we continue to allow social liberals to facilitate the slaughter of the unborn?

How many more concessions to we have to make to gays based solely on what they do with each other in the bedroom? How much longer must we allow them to rub our faces in it?

If we just decriminalize pot, so we're told, it'll cut down on crime..... so you want us to concede that too.... Next they'll be saying that its time to decriminalize ecstasy...

Frankly, it makes no difference whether the Liberals are in power or the conservatives under a socially liberal platform.

It's like being offered a choice between arsenic or cyanide.

And social conservtaives who think they can make peace with and work with social liberals just don't get it. One side alone will be asked to make all the concessions....all the time.

If there was a grouyp that would stand for principle, instead of following the whim of every damned poll and pundit, then people might actually take notice, and believe for a change that there'a a point to this system and that there is a group that actually WILL do things differently.