Anti-Gay, Anti-Abortion Nazi Scheer

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

 

At least the Conservatives remain a big tent party, which allows a wide variety of views on social and ideological issues.

Under Harper, you had to stay fairly quiet on social issues in that tent. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

It will take a year to assess him. Already he seems to be trying to move closer to the Canadian middle ground on social issues which is the only way he can win against JT. This means disappointing his own supporters.  

[Boges]

SoCons need to come to terms with the fact that it's not the government's role to have a say on social issues.

And just people, in your tent, can have harsh judgement on people with hardline Islamic views, people have issues with Conservative Christian doctrine. 

You'll spend the rest your lives in opposition if you feel that you can't support a political party that won't try to enforce your own social values. 

At the same time, people on the left shouldn't demonize people for their personal views. That's especially hypocritical because they aren't nearly as judgemental on the personal views of people that come from other religions. 

This should all be about how the tax money we get taken from us gets spent, nothing more. 

 

[sharkman]

JT must be on shaky ground what with the liberal responses to the new Tory leader(the fearmongering I mean).  Personally I agree with them, JT has been a disaster, and the Canadian voter seems to be getting that feeling that they kissed their sister.  But it's early, perhaps JT can do something notable.  Did you see him on the weekend wearing that ridiculous helmet?  He is no Pierre.

Edited May 29, 2017 by sharkman

[Argus]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Under Harper, you had to stay fairly quiet on social issues in that tent. 

Were the anti-abortion types forbidden from attending and speaking to the various demonstrations and protests?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

SoCons need to come to terms with the fact that it's not the government's role to have a say on social issues.

Seems to me the Liberals have been very active in involving government in social issues. And the NDP would be worse.

Though I generally agree the government should be leaving most social issues alone.

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎05‎-‎29 at 0:44 AM, August1991 said:

The only reason that he won the Conservative leadership is because of the radical Social Conservative (SoCon) vote. They pushed him over the 50% line; and they own him now. 

Anyway, with a name like Scheer, he must be a Nazi.

=====

This is how the CBC (eg Michael Enright) will present our next federal Conservative leader.

Lol I was about to give you a what for until I got to the last sentence. In fact no sooner have you written this then I heard similar comments on CBC radio. Not quite as blatant but close enough.

Clearly the Conservatives did not agree with Bernier's Libertarian views that quite frankly to me sounded a lot as well like the old Social Creditiste Party and Union National Party from Quebec. I do not like Bernier. I think he is a superficial air head. Dangerously stupid.

Sheer is boring and bland but they chose him because he is another Harper. I can live with bland and boring if he is the alternative to Lord  Justin of Trudeau and gets the spending under control.

In terms of his religious views, like Harper, he does not hide them but he does not impose them.  I think he's a better choice long run than Bernier if the next election comes down to finances. If Canadians again choose style over substance his bland image  may hurt him. Some are painting him as a Joe Clark and Bernier as Mulroney.

Bernier was and is no Mulroney.He's an inept former insurance executive. Mulroney was a labour lawyer who could sell swamp water.

I got no problems with a bland guy for now. Let's see what he can do. The part clearly did not want Bernier. Politics does not attract anything but policy wonks like Scheer these days unless you want pretty boy narcissists. I take wonk over pretty boy. Substance over tap dancing to t.v. photo ops.

But hey the French PM and Justin will rule the world, hand in hand, iiterally.

Mr. Scheer sounds like a brand name for nylons. Go for it. Hey he is from Saskatchewan. Is that in Canada? Mr. Diefenbaker wasn't he from there? Hey are they both German? Is Saskatchewan in Germany?

Oh wait though. We will soon be joined by a new NDP leader, can't wait.

 

[PIK]

So the liberals attack him on his religious views while trudeau is meeting the pope, did trudeau asked the pope what he thought about abortion?

[betsy]

It's starting, folks.  The lib media is trying to define Scheer.

One of the news channel (I think it's CTV) was asking Rempel  if Scheer's going to open up the social conservative issues - and good for Rempel who replied that that's the story the media is trying to latch on despite the fact that Scheer made it clear he won't be openning up those issues.

[Boges]

51 minutes ago, PIK said:

So the liberals attack him on his religious views while trudeau is meeting the pope, did trudeau asked the pope what he thought about abortion?

He was too busy demanding an apology for something this Pope had no part in, and that the last Pope expressed regret for. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, PIK said:

So the liberals attack him on his religious views while trudeau is meeting the pope, did trudeau asked the pope what he thought about abortion?

Going to see the pope was hardly a sign of any kind of religious devotion. Trudeau is basically an atheist and should actually be excommunicated for his leadership stance on abortion and gay marriage. No, Trudeau only went there to tick off a box on his 'do whatever you can to seem pro-native' list.

Has Trudeau ever asked any of the four Sikhs in his cabinet what their views on abortion are? These are not exactly secular people. They literally wear their religious devotion on their heads. Yet we're supposed to presume they are pro-choice? 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Argus

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

They literally wear their religious devotion on their heads. Yet we're supposed to presume they are pro-choice? 

Is this a mind-reading miracle based on attire, or a sweepingly ignorant generalization based on attire?

[Argus]

Just now, dialamah said:

Is this a mind-reading miracle based on attire, or a sweepingly ignorant generalization based on attire?

No, this logical deduction. I understand, though, why this would confuse you as logic plays no part in your political views.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

No, this logical deduction. I understand, though, why this would confuse you as logic plays no part in your political views.

ASSuming you understand a person's thought process and motivation based on what they wear isn't a logical approach to anything except xenophobia.     

[Argus]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

ASSuming you understand a person's thought process and motivation based on what they wear isn't a logical approach to anything except xenophobia.     

Presuming someone who is a visibly devoted member of a religion does not support the religion's fundamental beliefs is brainless stupidity.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Argus

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Presuming someone who is a visibly devoted member of a religion does not support the religion's fundamental beliefs is brainless stupidity.

A co-worker is Catholic, wears a cross everyday, and attends Church at least weekly.  She thinks abortion is a personal choice.

Another co-worker attends a different Christian Church and also wears a cross, attends weekly but disagrees with her Churches stance on homosexuality.

Assuming you know what someone believes because of what they wear is brainless stupidity.

 

[-1=e^ipi]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Trudeau is basically an atheist

Pretty sure Trudeau is a theist.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

Pretty sure Trudeau is a theist.

 

JT is on camera reciting the Shahada in front of witnesses.

One does this to become a member of a certain major religion...no names.

[Goddess]

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

A co-worker is Catholic, wears a cross everyday, and attends Church at least weekly.  She thinks abortion is a personal choice.

Another co-worker attends a different Christian Church and also wears a cross, attends weekly but disagrees with her Churches stance on homosexuality.

Assuming you know what someone believes because of what they wear is brainless stupidity.

 

The differences here, of course, are that the cross does not represent any particular POLITICAL leanings.  Women are not being massacred all over the planet for not wearing a cross and no one is trying to force legislation to demand to wear the cross at inappropriate times.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

A co-worker is Catholic, wears a cross everyday, and attends Church at least weekly.  She thinks abortion is a personal choice.

Wearing a cross is not even in the same league as coping with the mass of hair, wrapping it in clothe, and all the other things Muslims have to do daily, everywhere they go. It takes real devotion to do all that, and devotion comes with belief. If you don't have the belief then what's the point?

[dialamah]

33 minutes ago, Argus said:

Wearing a cross is not even in the same league as coping with the mass of hair, wrapping it in clothe, and all the other things Muslims have to do daily, everywhere they go. It takes real devotion to do all that, and devotion comes with belief. If you don't have the belief then what's the point?

Read this from a bisexual hijabi woman and then maybe take a good long look at your assumptions about what people you don't know and don't even try to know, think or believe.

 

Being Muslim and hijabi puts me in the perfect place to reach and talk to a lot of people. For example, I have talked to a lot of Muslim youth about feminism and they have consistently been understanding and interested in our discussions. Plus, people in the Muslim community can be a lot more open than many give them credit.

Many of my Muslim friends support gay rights, and I myself am LGBTQIA+. How dare any one try to erase one part of my identity because they are prejudiced against another part?

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Read this from a bisexual hijabi woman and then maybe take a good long look at your assumptions about what people you don't know and don't even try to know, think or believe.

 

Apart from her own personal choices and associated struggles in "the west", I wonder how her vision of feminism and LGBTQIA++++++ is doing in many predominantly Muslim nations, wherein Christians or Jews are "the other".

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-05-29 at 4:49 PM, Argus said:

Were the anti-abortion types forbidden from attending and speaking to the various demonstrations and protests?

Did Harper really encourage debate on abortion among his MPs? 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/on-abortion-is-there-any-difference-between-harper-and-trudeau/

I believe MPs should be free to follow their conscience on issues like this and capital punishment but that's not generally how political parties like to organize things. Pressure to follow the party line can be overt and/or covert but it's usually there. 

[kimmy]

On 5/29/2017 at 6:37 AM, Argus said:

To progressives, anyone who holds views on social issues different from theirs is a heretic. They've taken the view that such beliefs are illegitimate, and that no one holds them aside from 'dinosaurs' or other such fringe creatures of the past. Yet most polls show that between a third to half of Canadians hold views opposing abortion, gay/transgendered rights, legalizing marijuana or favoring the death penalty. You can't simply dismiss vast numbers of people like that as somehow beyond the pale, unfit for airing in public, and  not deserving of political representation. 

 

The Conservatives can offer political representation to people with anti-gay or anti-abortion views if they wish.  They won't, because they know these issues are vote-losers for them.

What kind of political representation do you want those issues to get?  If you want the Conservatives to be a champion for people who hold those views, the Conservatives will lose.   Why should anti-gay or anti-abortion views be treated any different from other popular (but not popular enough) viewpoints?  If we were talking about some view you hate-- say, guaranteed income, or proportional representation-- would you feel like they too need some kind of political representation?

"Listen, 1/3 of Canadians support changing the FPTP system, and those people deserve representation!"

I have a hunch that no, you wouldn't be nearly as sympathetic if we were talking about something that you think is stupid.

 

Mr Scheer says that these issues are finished and he won't be reopening them.  I hope he means it, because the next election should be about spending and fiscal management, not about social conservatism.   Stephen Harper was Prime Minister for a long time because people trusted him to run the economy and they trusted him to keep the government's nose out of those issues.  It's a good formula.

 -k

[-1=e^ipi]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

not about social conservatism.

I disagree. It would be nice if the social conservatism in all 5 major parties on issues like reproductive freedom, drug legalization & men's rights were exposed.