Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[overthere]

it was already mentioned that you can't sign away your parental obligations.

Nore should you be able to.... but you can definitely can and should protect the right to assets for both sets of natural children.

[monty16]

Some posts have been split off from this thread and placed into a new thread called: "Step Parent Child Support Laws and Ethics"

I appreciate your efforts. Please be sure to stay consistent on this issue. What was happening in this thread paled in comparison to what has been happening forum wide. It you intend to run a tight ship then I'm with you. If not then it will become quite evident shortly.

Are you being procative on clamping down on some of the personal insults and attacks? There are numerous ones that I've notived and have not reported because they didn't concern me personally. Should I be reporting them anyway?

[Charles Anthony]

I appreciate your efforts. Please be sure to stay consistent on this issue.

It was barely any effort on my part. Most of the work was done by CyberC in that he told me:

a) there was a problem with thread drift;

that I should split one thread into a new one;

c) what the title of the new thread could be;

d) a list of post #s that should be split off;

e) a reasonable timeline for which to accomplish this split.

All I did was say: "Duh. Ok." and then I pushed a few buttons on a computer.

What was happening in this thread paled in comparison to what has been happening forum wide. It you intend to run a tight ship then I'm with you. If not then it will become quite evident shortly.

Great! I am glad to learn you are on board!

Are you being procative on clamping down on some of the personal insults and attacks?

No. No more than before, I would suppose.

However, I am not certain what action on my part would qualify as proactive in your opinion. Tell me: After you file a report of a clear personal insult and or attacks, what do you want us moderators to do?

There are numerous ones that I've notived and have not reported because they didn't concern me personally. Should I be reporting them anyway?

Yes. You should report those posts to us and then ignore the offensive poster. Do not respond in kind.

[monty16]

It was barely any effort on my part. Most of the work was done by CyberC in that he told me:

a) there was a problem with thread drift;

that I should split one thread into a new one;

c) what the title of the new thread could be;

d) a list of post #s that should be split off;

e) a reasonable timeline for which to accomplish this split.

All I did was say: "Duh. Ok." and then I pushed a few buttons on a computer.

Great! I am glad to learn you are on board!

No. No more than before, I would suppose.

However, I am not certain what action on my part would qualify as proactive in your opinion. Tell me: After you file a report of a clear personal insult and or attacks, what do you want us moderators to do?

Yes. You should report those posts to us and then ignore the offensive poster. Do not respond in kind.

To answer your two questions: I'm not here to set the rules for the forum but I will make a suggestion on how to handle personal insults and attacks. Perhaps an escalating warning system which starts with a verbal warning, then a day suspension, then two days suspension or a week, and so on. It could be an admin nightmare but you have said that you dealt with the current problem with impunity. However, I certainly don't want to see anybody lose their right to post entirely. Especially those who I personally differ with. There is little traffic on this forum already.

No, I don't respond in kind but I usually tell the offender that I find his/her personal attack offensive and I tell him/her that I am reporting it. I'm assuming that's the right thing to do?

edit: I should have also suggested that I would prefer that warnings are not kept on file for a long period of time. Say, no longer than a month if the correction is heeded.

Edited June 7, 2014 by monty16

[PIK]

I am hearing now ,they is no grandfathering for the old MP's that are pro life. Another flip flop.

[hitops]

Setting aside the clumsy manner in which Trudeau said it, please tell me what the difference is between Harper and Trudeau on this issue:

Trudeau says - You can hold whatever views you wish but on the issue of abortion you must vote with the party in favour of women's rights above any anti-abortion feelings you may hold.

Harper says - The Cons will never open up this issue for a vote, so even if you hold anti-abortion views, there will never be legislation from the Conservative Party on this issue.

Essentially, both party leaders have forced their party into the same stance on abortion.

The difference I believe, is that conservative candidates can still openly promote pro-life views and openly state they are pro-life and intend to vote that way, and run in conservative primaries and win. No so with Liberals - if your questionnaire says anything like that, you will not be allowed to run under their name. Also in house, conservative MP's can still vote anyway they like. In practice, the party will allow a vote to take place, but in theory should one happen, you can vote however you want. For Liberals, should a vote happen, you cannot vote however you want. It's a distinction without a practical difference.

Since there is no way a majority of MP's in the house would ever vote for anything pro-life, I wonder what Justin thought he was accomplishing with all of this beyond making trouble for himself.

Edited June 20, 2014 by hitops

[On Guard for Thee]

Setting aside the clumsy manner in which Trudeau said it, please tell me what the difference is between Harper and Trudeau on this issue:

Trudeau says - You can hold whatever views you wish but on the issue of abortion you must vote with the party in favour of women's rights above any anti-abortion feelings you may hold.

Harper says - The Cons will never open up this issue for a vote, so even if you hold anti-abortion views, there will never be legislation from the Conservative Party on this issue.

Essentially, both party leaders have forced their party into the same stance on abortion.

No difference. As well, Harper has already shown his cards on the issue by shutting down two attempts by backbenchers to table motions on abortion laws.

[The_Squid]

No difference. As well, Harper has already shown his cards on the issue by shutting down two attempts by backbenchers to table motions on abortion laws.

I think Hilltops put it well in the previous post... "a distinction without a practical difference". While it may look different to their supporters/detractors, the reality is that there is no practical difference in the two leaders' approach to abortion.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think Hilltops put it well in the previous post... "a distinction without a practical difference". While it may look different to their supporters/detractors, the reality is that there is no practical difference in the two leaders' approach to abortion.

No practical difference for sure but I think you could certainly make a case that the Liberal is more decisive.

[overthere]

Setting aside the clumsy manner in which Trudeau said it, please tell me what the difference is between Harper and Trudeau on this issue:

Trudeau says - You can hold whatever views you wish but on the issue of abortion you must vote with the party in favour of women's rights above any anti-abortion feelings you may hold.

Harper says - The Cons will never open up this issue for a vote, so even if you hold anti-abortion views, there will never be legislation from the Conservative Party on this issue.

Essentially, both party leaders have forced their party into the same stance on abortion.

Not really, since you don't go on to note that Harper has also said MPs can vote their conscience on what he sees as issues of conscience. An example fo that was the most recent same sex marriage vote, in which the PCs were not whipped. The NDP did whip all members, the Liberals whipped their Cabinet.

There's the difference: Trudeau states his MPs and any Liberal candidates must support abortion on demand if and when the question arises. . Harper says you can hold whatever view you like, but his government won't put the question to Parliament , so the question won't arise where it matters most.

[cybercoma]

Harper says you can hold whatever view you like, but his government won't put the question to Parliament , so the question won't arise where it matters most.

Except the questions have been put to parliament. It may not come from cabinet, but it comes from his party.

[Derek 2.0]

And from the pro-life camp:

The postcards, which state “Justin Trudeau Supports Abortion Until Birth,” are from anti-abortion group Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). They are designed to shock voters, encourage the Liberals to change their stance on abortion rights and elect more Conservative candidates, the group said.

Another issue that Trudeau could have avoided by allowing Liberals with pro-life views to vote with their conscience........but instead Trudeau attempted to reignite an actual political non issue (in that the Tories, Liberals or NDP will never ban abortion), creating a political divisive issue that has long been (politically) resolved for most......

the group is targeting Trudeau because he changed long-standing Liberal policy and froze anti-abortionists out of his parliamentary caucus.

Last May, just before the annual anti-abortion demonstration March for Life, Trudeau announced to reporters that no one who was not prepared to support abortion rights policies in the House of Commons would be allowed to run as a Liberal candidate.

CLC wasn’t targeting NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair or his candidates, Wojciechowski said, because the NDP had supported abortion rights for decades.

Again, I feel this is an issue of Trudeau's own making.........an example of one of the flyers:


Warning some members and forum facilitators may find offensive!!!

Clearly a shocking image, and though I largely find the practice morally reprehensible, I'm still pro-choice.......but I can understand why some are opposed to it, likewise I feel those opposed should be able to have their moral voice heard through their own MP, be they a Tory or a Liberal........I feel Trudeau's stifling of those members of his own parties voice was wrong.......I no doubt feel this will hurt him with some of the electorate.



Making an issue that has been put to bed was a stupid political error on Trudeau's part.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Derek 2.0
graphic image

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, Derek 2.0, graphic images are not allowed on here.

[Derek 2.0]

Sorry, Derek 2.0, graphic images are not allowed on here.

What is the site's definition of a "graphic image"? Images you personally find distasteful or ones that run counter to your own political bias? I would think an image posted by the Huffington Post would be acceptable.......

As I said to you in a previous private conversation, perhaps the site should have a defined set of rules encompassing images, topics, foul language and other things that you find personally distasteful......it would save you the time in future from editing other members post to be more of your liking.

Thanks in advance.

[Michael Hardner]

What is the site's definition of a "graphic image"? Images you personally find distasteful or ones that run counter to your own political bias?

I have to make a judgement call based on what we've allowed in the past. It has nothing to do with my own political biases.

As I said to you in a previous private conversation, perhaps the site should have a defined set of rules encompassing images, topics, foul language and other things that you find personally distasteful......it would save you the time in future from editing other members post to be more of your liking.

It's pretty hard to define these things. I suggest you start a thread in the Questions forum on that topic.

[Derek 2.0]

It's pretty hard to define these things. I suggest you start a thread in the Questions forum on that topic.

I will, once the ongoing topic covering "trolling" has been resolved.

[On Guard for Thee]

And from the pro-life camp:

Another issue that Trudeau could have avoided by allowing Liberals with pro-life views to vote with their conscience........but instead Trudeau attempted to reignite an actual political non issue (in that the Tories, Liberals or NDP will never ban abortion), creating a political divisive issue that has long been (politically) resolved for most......

Again, I feel this is an issue of Trudeau's own making.........an example of one of the flyers:

Clearly a shocking image, and though I largely find the practice morally reprehensible, I'm still pro-choice.......but I can understand why some are opposed to it, likewise I feel those opposed should be able to have their moral voice heard through their own MP, be they a Tory or a Liberal........I feel Trudeau's stifling of those members of his own parties voice was wrong.......I no doubt feel this will hurt him with some of the electorate.

Making an issue that has been put to bed was a stupid political error on Trudeau's part.

It seems quite clear that from the image you attempted to post, your statement about being pro choice is questionable.

[Derek 2.0]

It seems quite clear that from the image you attempted to post, your statement about being pro choice is questionable.

Why is that?

[On Guard for Thee]

Why is that?

Should be obvious. Such images are only meant to try and make a point based on shock value.

[Derek 2.0]

Should be obvious. Such images are only meant to try and make a point based on shock value.

Hence the point of the flyer.........are you suggesting the Huffington Post is also Pro-Life because they too posted the image?

[On Guard for Thee]

Hence the point of the flyer.........are you suggesting the Huffington Post is also Pro-Life because they too posted the image?

No idea what Huffpost was up to. Trudeau supports abortion. Why not leave it at that since you claim to be a pro choice guy as well.

[On Guard for Thee]

Hence the point of the flyer.........are you suggesting the Huffington Post is also Pro-Life because they too posted the image?

You do understand who originally posted the image do you...

[Guest]

It seems quite clear that from the image you attempted to post, your statement about being pro choice is questionable.

I agree with Derek here. I'm pro choice, but I don't see any point in hiding from things being the way they are.

The news is not abortion per se, but rather the political statement made using those images.

Edited June 1, 2015 by bcsapper

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree with Derek here. I'm pro choice, but I don't see any point in hiding from things being the way they are.

The news is not abortion per se, but rather the political statement made using those images.

The political statement suggested by this image is totally distasteful to me.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see any point in hiding from things being the way they are.

We have had a rule against posting disgusting images in the past, which I last used to remove images of war, terrorist attacks and so on. The general idea is that you can discuss such issues without the aid of such images.

I've asked again, to confirm that the rule is still in place.