waldo Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 I remind you that the Liberals used to oppose both legalizing pot and gay rights. and lets not forget their strong opposition to same sex marriage in Chretiens term. but the Libs... but the Libs! Opposing gay rights Argus? Really? If you're speaking to anything other than the right to marriage, please clarify just how far back you're prepared to go. On a personal level, yes, Jean Chretien was of a generation that held to the past traditional definition of marriage... but as one of the architects of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Chretien was a long and vocal proponent of civil unions, of wanting to provide gay/lesbian couples full legal rights equivalent to that of traditional marriage. That was initially the avenue he sought to engage the courts with... whether he changed because the highest courts continually ruled against civil union, or he had a personal dose of influenced enlightenment, he changed... subsequently referring to his personal decision in a self-deprecating way, calling it his personal struggle with semantics... that he had to deal with it... that he survived it! In any case, it was ultimately Chretien's legalizing gay marriage legislation that Paul Martin continued on with to full passage through Parliament in 2005. of course, one thing Chretien never did was to follow the threatening position/intent of Stephen Harper to use the notwithstanding clause to, "preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman"! Gee, I wonder what ultimately shifted that Harper personal position, hey? . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 but the Libs... but the Libs! Opposing gay rights Argus? Really? If you're speaking to anything other than the right to marriage, please clarify just how far back you're prepared to go. On a personal level, yes, Jean Chretien was of a generation that held to the past traditional definition of marriage... but as one of the architects of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Chretien was a long and vocal proponent of civil unions, of wanting to provide gay/lesbian couples full legal rights equivalent to that of traditional marriage. That was initially the avenue he sought to engage the courts with... whether he changed because the highest courts continually ruled against civil union, or he had a personal dose of influenced enlightenment, he changed... subsequently referring to his personal decision in a self-deprecating way, calling it his personal struggle with semantics... that he had to deal with it... that he survived it! In any case, it was ultimately Chretien's legalizing gay marriage legislation that Paul Martin continued on with to full passage through Parliament in 2005. You're bang-on about Chretien. Good post Waldo. Quote Back to Basics
Bob Macadoo Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 You're bang-on about Chretien. Good post Waldo. Hey wasn't Argus looking for any legacy accomplishments by Chretien? Hmmm.....seems a walk in the snow to me. Quote
Argus Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 I don't know what part of Canada you live in, or how much of it you have seen, but I have started out in that big smoke that is the center of the universe and then I have lived on the both islands that bracket the geography and many places in between and have travelled to work from sea to sea to sea, and everywhere in between, and I could not disagree more with your outlandish statement of what Canadians know about things. I think you need to get out more.I get out more than enough to see what people are basing their political decisions on. Generally they lack big pictures. When they do think of the big picture it's because they heard something on TV or on the radio about an issue but they lack the interest to really look into it. They simply think the government ought to do something about it. They want and demand all their social programs and want great infrastructure and security and the like, but they don't want to pay for any of it. They embrace simple solutions to complex issues because they couldn't bother to actually delve into them to understand the broader implications of what they advocate. That's when they think about politics at all, which, it might surprise people on a web site like this, is seldom. This is particularly so of young people (under 30) who have passionate beliefs on issues they know virtually nothing about because they don't read the papers or watch the news. Fortunately they almost never vote. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) but the Libs... but the Libs! It REALLY bugs you that people still haven't forgotten the corruption, incompetence and lack of leadership of your party, doesn't it, Waldo? On a personal level, yes, Jean Chretien was of a generation that held to the past traditional definition of marriage... but as one of the architects of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Chretien was a long and vocal proponent of civil unions, So is Stephen Harper. Doh! In any case, it was ultimately Chretien's legalizing gay marriage legislation that Paul Martin continued on with to full passage through Parliament in 2005. Chretien's marriage act explicitly said that it was not meant in any way, shape or form, to suggest legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because he couldn't get it passed otherwise. Too many Liberals were threatening to vote against it. It was the Supreme Court which legalized marriage, not Chretien. of course, one thing Chretien never did was to follow the threatening position/intent of Stephen Harper to use the notwithstanding clause to, "preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman"! Gee, I wonder what ultimately shifted that Harper personal position, hey? And your point is what? Chretien was a crooked, slimy, mean-spirited, vicious, vindictive, lying weasel who accomplished nothing in his years in office other than to make himself rich. Edited September 7, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 It REALLY bugs you that people still haven't forgotten the corruption, incompetence and lack of leadership of your party, doesn't it, Waldo? it REALLY bugs you that I continue to highlight your refusal to hold Harper Conservatives accountable/responsible for their governing period... that you have to continually provide Harper Conservatives cover with your tired routine of dredging up decade+ old, "but the Libs, but the Libs", plantive wails! You're shrieking like a lil' 5-year old Argus. . So is Stephen Harper. Doh! I gave you my personal interpretation of what might have brought Chretien around... his dabble with semantics, as he referred to it. Notwithstanding my reference to Harper threats to invoke the notwithstanding clause to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, I also asked what brought Harper around. Per your Harper cya ways, you wouldn't touch either of these! . Chretien's marriage act explicitly said that it was not meant in any way, shape or form, to suggest legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because he couldn't get it passed otherwise. Too many Liberals were threatening to vote against it. It was the Supreme Court which legalized marriage, not Chretien. no - your vitrol won't prevail here! Who knew the SCOC writes laws!!! Point in fact is that the Chretien government drafted the legislation and approached the SCOC to provide direction/ruling as to: "whether or not Parliament had the legal authority to define marriage... and if the proposed legislation was compatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms". The fact the SCOC ruled in favour of the proposed Chretien Liberal legislation... that the federal government could change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples... that paved the way for the eventual Parliamentary vote on the Liberals Bill C-38: passing final reading in the HOC with a 158-133 vote with the support of Liberals, NDP and the Bloc. Hey Argus, care to comment on what side of that vote the overwhelming number of Harper Conservative votes went to? probably the clowning glory on Harper's actions through this event was his comment after the vote... after Royal Ascent... after it was law... Harper stating the law "lacked legitimacy because it only passed with the support of the separatist Bloc party"! That's your boy Harper's comment there, hey! . And your point is what? Chretien was a crooked, slimy, mean-spirited, vicious, vindictive, lying weasel who accomplished nothing in his years in office other than to make himself rich. my immediate point was made earlier in this post... that you wouldn't touch the comment. My more generalized point is characterized by your vitriol in this quoted comment - just more of your, "but the Libs, but the Libs". As MLW member, 'Bob Macadoo', highlighted... you were lamenting a supposed lacking of Chretien 'legacy accomplishments': the waldo just gave you 2... his role in creating the Charter of Rights & Freedoms... his initiated same-sex marriage legislation that ultimately became the law of Canada. You're welcome! Quote
Charles Anthony Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 Folks, Stop the thread drift. Ch. A. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
sharkman Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 Today we had Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay making statements in Marc Emery's hometown with the following absurd statements: His government won’t loosen marijuana laws. (Let's fill up those prisons!) We do not favour legalization, we do not favour decriminalization. (they refuse to look at what the majority of Canadians wants) It is our intention to continue to uphold the law that does not allow the proliferation of drug use and marijuana. (MJ is a terrible drug!) Liberal government would make it easier for children to get their hands on pot. While the Liberals would try to make it easier for our children to access marijuana, Canadians can count on our government to put forward policies that keep drugs off our streets and keep our families safe. (It's my assumption that a child would not be allowed to purchase mj, similar to alcohol and cigarettes) With statements like these how can we not vote liberal. Come on, how many times have you voted Tory in federal elections? You're a dyed in the wool liberal thinking person, so you've voted either Liberal or NDP in federal elections. Starting a thread suggesting that JT is "winning" your vote seems more like an effort at winning votes for him. Quote
Argus Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) it REALLY bugs you that I continue to highlight your refusal to hold Harper Conservatives accountable/responsible for their governing period... Didn't writing that make you feel just a little lame? I mean, even the lefties reading it were probably rolling their eyes. Seriously, Waldo, I'm pretty sure I've held Harper to account on serious issues more than you ever have, because I don't spew mindless partisan vitriol like you do. I gave you my personal interpretation of what might have brought Chretien around Nobody cares about your 'personal interpretation'. The facts are Chretien's marriage bill deliberately stated it in no way intended to legalize gay marriage and that this was done because despite the government's statement it was so LIBERAL MPs were still deeply suspicious it could be interpreted by the SC to allow gay marriage. Chretien was forced to put the firm statement against gay marriage in to assuage them. my immediate point was made earlier in this post... that you wouldn't touch the comment. Sorry, but what? What inane nonsense are you spouting about? Do you even know what you're trying to say here? Because first you snivel about my allegedly defending Harper and then you snivel that I won't defend Harper! You write the most bitter, mindless partisan posts on this web site, Waldo, utterly filled with hate. And you have the gall to whine about MY partisanship? PHht! I judge Trudeau as I did Chretien, by the same standards I judge an other politician. If that makes you want to tear your hair out and gnash your teeth then so be it. Edited September 7, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Vancouver King Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 How is Trudeau winning my vote? By being the only electable alternative to the current gov't. The next election is only about a year away so allow me to be first in turning away from my first choice - the NDP. Strategic voting might just be the difference in an effort to turn Harper out of office. Quote When the people have no tyrant, their public opinion becomes one. ...... Lord Lytton
waldo Posted September 7, 2014 Report Posted September 7, 2014 Argus!!! Could you be any more over the top? In line with the "moderator's" latest post, the reason I'm voting for Trudeau is because Argas, utterly filled with hate (his words), is so against JT! What so disturbs and upsets Argus must be good for Canada. Notwithstanding the Argus is screeching about the wrong event/timeline... perhaps the guy should start at the June 17, 2003 milestone point where Chretien announced legislation to make same-sex marriages legal and then, per my prior post, approached the SCOC to rule on the points I stated. But hey now... imagine that... unlike Harper's confrontational approach with the SCOC, Chretien actually engaged the SCOC to guide/rule that his same-sex marriage legislation intent would pass constitutional scrutiny... that the federal government had the right to declare the legality of same sex marriage! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 I'd honestly like to be able to think about voting for Trudeau but at this point, I can't even consider it. I'll wait until it's close to voting time but so far, the guy has continued to confirm all the negative talk - he's been a completely empty vessel. When he finally is allowed to regularly speak in unscripted forums, maybe he'll show a glimmer of competence......but right now I'll clearly vote for the Devil I know. With noting but reckless naïvetee, he'd be a danger to the country. Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Argus!!! Could you be any more over the top? In line with the "moderator's" latest post, the reason I'm voting for Trudeau is because Argas, utterly filled with hate (his words), is so against JT! What so disturbs and upsets Argus must be good for Canada. Notwithstanding the Argus is screeching about the wrong event/timeline... perhaps the guy should start at the June 17, 2003 milestone point where Chretien announced legislation to make same-sex marriages legal and then, per my prior post, approached the SCOC to rule on the points I stated. But hey now... imagine that... unlike Harper's confrontational approach with the SCOC, Chretien actually engaged the SCOC to guide/rule that his same-sex marriage legislation intent would pass constitutional scrutiny... that the federal government had the right to declare the legality of same sex marriage! What can one say to such a bitter, disjointed rant other than to wonder what manner of medication or its lack might alleviate the unfortunate symptoms which inspired it? Edited September 8, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 What can one say to such a bitter, disjointed rant other than to wonder what manner of medication or its lack might alleviate the unfortunate symptoms which inspired it? no bitterness... not disjointed. I'd suggest you take a moment and revisit some of your recent posts! As I said, could you be any more 'over the top'? Quote
guyser Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 Chretien was a crooked, slimy, mean-spirited, vicious, vindictive, lying weasel who accomplished nothing in his years in office other than to make himself rich. Wait...who's bitter ? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 Wait...who's bitter ? Yes I do seem to detect a slight tinge of aversion toward Mr. Chetien surfacing once in a while here. Quote
overthere Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 "Used to" Get with the times Got it. In our comparison of actual political acts, not a good idea to introduce facts. I'll avoid any reference to the actual Liberal voting record in the House of Commons on same sex marriage. i feel shame. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 Chretien was a long and vocal proponent of civil unions, Yes, he was one of those who supported a second class tier of domestic arrangements for some citizens in a startling new definition of 'equality'.. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
waldo Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 and lets not forget their [Liberals] strong opposition to same sex marriage in Chretiens term. Got it. In our comparison of actual political acts, not a good idea to introduce facts. I'll avoid any reference to the actual Liberal voting record in the House of Commons on same sex marriage. i feel shame. have a waldo factoid on me: Liberal Bill C-38 - Law on Civil Marriage, passed final HOC reading by a 158-133 vote... reflects upon the original Chretien bill, and the 2+ year wait for a SCOC decision after Chretien approached the SCOC for a ruling on the constitutionality of his bill intent... and if the federal government had the right to declare same-sex marriage legal: about you speaking to "strong opposition"... what do you call the above Conservative votes, hey? Quote
Argus Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 Wait...who's bitter ? Was anything I said incorrect? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 Yes I do seem to detect a slight tinge of aversion toward Mr. Chetien surfacing once in a while here. In a perfect world Jean Chretien would occupy the same jail cell as Brian Mulroney. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 about you speaking to "strong opposition"... what do you call the above Conservative votes, hey? The Conservatives have never made any secret of their opposition to same sex marriage. And in any case, you seem to be forgetting in your frantic desperation to excuse the Liberals this entire side-trip into the realm of gay marriage came about only because of the point I made, which is that like the Tories, the Liberals governed by the polls, not by principles. Their sudden swing-round from opposing gay marriage to supporting gay marriage wasn't due to principles but polls. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted September 8, 2014 Report Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Was anything I said incorrect? Yes. But more to the point, it sure comes across as bitter. Edited September 8, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
Argus Posted September 9, 2014 Report Posted September 9, 2014 Yes. But more to the point, it sure comes across as bitter. At Chretien. But I'm not directing my bitterness at other posters. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted September 9, 2014 Report Posted September 9, 2014 But I'm not directing my bitterness at other posters. good on ya for acknowledging that, yes... your posts display the personal bitterness you hold toward former Prime Minister Jean Chretien... a decade+ long bitterness that clearly festers and allows you a most convenient, "but the Libs, but the Libs", outlet to, effectively, cover-up and discharge the current governing accountability/responsibility of Harper Conservatives. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.