Harper

[I miss Reagan]

The trouble is the CPC does not want a balanced gov't: they want their style of gov't or nothing. Canadians elected a minority which gave Harper the option of collaborating with the Liberals and ensuring that Albertans views are fairly represented at the federal level. Instead, he pissed away the opportunity in the hopes of getting a CPC majority. Now after wasting all of his political capital on the 'corruption' issue he has no choice but to fume while the Liberals go around cutting deals for the next few months.

See, you want the CPC to be the Liberals but with blue signs. Others on the forum have pointed this out. There are only so many concessions Harper can make before he becomes a Liberal. Then what happens is the party splits again (which is lovely for you guys) and the Liberals once again are the only party. Canada as it now stands is ungovernable.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hmm, Alberta; better health care and education, lower unemployment, lower taxes, no debt. Yes, I can see how horrible it would be if the rest of Canada were like that.

Albertans of the conservative/parochial type clearly think that it would be horrible.

[I miss Reagan]

Harper wants Canada to resemble Alberta under Klein.

I suspect that most Canadians wouldn't want that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, Alberta; better health care and education, lower unemployment, lower taxes, no debt. Yes, I can see how horrible it would be if the rest of Canada were like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, So true.

[Riverwind]

See, you want the CPC to be the Liberals but with blue signs.  Others on the forum have pointed this out.  There are only so many concessions Harper can make before he becomes a Liberal.  Then what happens is the party splits again (which is lovely for you guys) and the Liberals once again are the only party.  Canada as it now stands is ungovernable.

Democracy requires all sorts of messy compromises. I am sure Martin and Goodale hated the idea of making concessions to the NDP on tax cuts but they did because the NDP was the only deal on the table. Harper could have used his leverage to get many items on the CPC agenda into the budget and even get credit for it for keeping the Liberals in line. But he decided to stand on 'principle' and ended up with nothing but a hope he might get a minority a few months from now.

[Black Dog]

During the next election, whenever it may be, Harper and the Conservatives need to start playing dirty, even if it involves blatantly lying or using sharp personal attacks on others, in order to even have a chance of winning a decent minority.

That would guarantee the further marginalization of the Cons. To which I say: go to it!

40% of Albertans are Left wing?? Can we see some stats on that?

2004 election results:

LIB 29.05%

NDP 9.79%

GRN 2.75%

Total: 41.49

How can you call Canada a democratic country? If you live in Ontario or Quebec it is democratic, if you live in the west or east, you're screwed! We live in a communist society which is run by Ontario & Quebec, if they don't like it, it doesn't fly. So you can take your sympathy and stick it up your ass, lets separate!!! If we can't separate, maybe Ottawa opens it's tunnel vision eyes and sees that we supply Canada with all the money to pretty up Ontario & Quebec!

Right. Whereas in Alberta, if you don't support the PCs you're screwed. We live in a one-party state which is run by rich Calgary oil execs, American insuransce companies and their lackeys in government who play off the phantom of western alienation to dominate people here in ways the federal Liberals could only dream of. Maybe its time you opened your eyes and cleaned up your own backyard before bitching about the feds.

It comes right down to the fact that, if you were born in Canada, spoke English first, male, heterosexual, with any religious background whatsoever, you're SCREWED!

Sad but true!

For a bunch of tough, independant minded folks, you Alberta cons sure are a bunch of crybabies. Your statement above is a perfect example of vacuous, unsupported b.s. playing on latent prejudices and typically Albertan "woe is me" paranoia. You liv ein a country run by rich white men, in a province run by rich white men for other rich white men. If you're feeling put upon, mabe you should ask the rich white men why they are screwing you over.

Let's take that a step further. The less people work, the more likely they are to support center or left wing parties.

proof?

If Jack Layton had his way, everyone would make $500/week and he would hold the purse strings. If you didn't vote his way, he would reduce it to $300/week, just so a person could survive! And welfare recipients would make $750/week!

People like you are the reason people don't trust the Conservatives. they see you and assume all the Cons are liars.

This is how you misunderstand Albertans. You mistake their desire for political freedom for being spoiled and wanting a uniform political state

Uh..Alberta is a uniform political state.

The correlation is between wealth and comfort and voting Liberal and NDP.

So which is it you guys? the stupid and ignorant? Or the rich elite?

I do find the modern working classes' tendancy to vote for the party least likely to represent their interests to be very intriguing. The working class tends to be to focussed on getting buy and thus don't have the education or time to devote to political analysis and are thus more likely to desire simple solutions to complex problems and are more succeptiable to the folksy, "down home" bromides favoured by right wing elitists such as Ralph Klein. As evidenced by this thread, they are also more likely to look for scapegoats for the inevitable failure of their political choices, be they "immigrants" "easterners" or "the well-off, the wine and cheese eating, gucci loving double income BMW drivers". No one likes admitting their wrong and Albertans seem especially prone to such thickheadedness, given their willingness to buy into the homegrown propaganda generated by the Klein Tories.

[I miss Reagan]

See, you want the CPC to be the Liberals but with blue signs.  Others on the forum have pointed this out.  There are only so many concessions Harper can make before he becomes a Liberal.  Then what happens is the party splits again (which is lovely for you guys) and the Liberals once again are the only party.  Canada as it now stands is ungovernable.

Democracy requires all sorts of messy compromises. I am sure Martin and Goodale hated the idea of making concessions to the NDP on tax cuts but they did because the NDP was the only deal on the table. Harper could have used his leverage to get many items on the CPC agenda into the budget and even get credit for it for keeping the Liberals in line. But he decided to stand on 'principle' and ended up with nothing but a hope he might get a minority a few months from now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you're right, but I'm not sure it would've worked. As I see it the biggest obstacles to the CPC's gain power are:

1) They aren't as wily or cunning as the Liberals. The Liberals play the game better.

2) They don't muzzle the few radicals in their party as well as the Liberals do in theirs.

3) The press. They are crusified by the media for every little gaffe or mistake while the Liberals seem to get a pass on everything.

[I miss Reagan]

QUOTE

During the next election, whenever it may be, Harper and the Conservatives need to start playing dirty, even if it involves blatantly lying or using sharp personal attacks on others, in order to even have a chance of winning a decent minority.

That would guarantee the further marginalization of the Cons. To which I say: go to it!

True, the Cons are held to a different standard by the press than the Libs are. Though not fair, we need to accept that handicap and either work around it or work smarter.

Right. Whereas in Alberta, if you don't support the PCs you're screwed. We live in a one-party state which is run by rich Calgary oil execs, American insuransce companies and their lackeys in government who play off the phantom of western alienation to dominate people here in ways the federal Liberals could only dream of. Maybe its time you opened your eyes and cleaned up your own backyard before bitching about the feds.

Here we go . You failed to mention the influence Walmart plays...

Although I agree Klien needs to go, they are nothing compared to the federal Libs.

I love that "phantom alienation" comment. As if the NEP, Kyoto, Gun Registry etc. etc. are figments of our imagination.

QUOTE

Let's take that a step further. The less people work, the more likely they are to support center or left wing parties.

proof?

I'm not sure I can provide you with proof that the sky is blue at this time, but I assure you it is. Lighten up my friend. BTW what is your profession BD? I'm wondering how you have so much time to waste on this forum?

Uh..Alberta is a uniform political state.

2004 election results:

LIB 29.05%

NDP 9.79%

GRN 2.75%

Total: 41.49

So which is it you guys? the stupid and ignorant? Or the rich elite?

You're repeating yourself. Examples: Paul Martin (AKA the Dirty Ditherer): "I love Kraft Dinner but I don't know how to make it", John Kerry: "I love peanut butter sandwhiches but my cook makes them for me", Belinda Stonach: her answer for everything is "it's very complex", Hollywood elite: very rich, very stupid and very liberal, ya we could go on but I think you get the point.

[Argus]

The poor, those who scramble for a living, farmers, mill workers, factory workers, the self employed, low wage earners, etc, are largely shut out of university without a really concerted effort.

How do you explain that there is a strong correlation between NDP ridings and the lower income areas of urban areas. Poor people in urban areas make more use of government services and therefore support the NDP.

Conservative supporters are for the most part are middle income rural or suburban voters living in ethnically and/or religiously homogenous areas. Liberal voters are urban or suburban voters living in ethnically diverse areas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all you haven't demonstrated any such corellation. The Conservatives seem to have a lot more ethnic supporters and MPS than the NDP. Are they all farmers or something? Around here, NDP support appears to come mainly from what used to be known as granola crunchers and yuppies not poor urban minorities. It seems to me that the NDP has a lot more support among the Starbucks crowd than the Wal-Mart crowd.

[bigdude]

Harper: Making Martin look good

Harper is doing his best to make Paul Martin look good. Here is a prime minister whose achievements to date were well summed-up by Mulroney cabinet minister, Don Mazankowski (as related to me by a longtime Liberal operative): So far, Martin has managed to unite the right, reactivate the Bloc, and divide his own party. Not a bad start, eh?

In order to get himself out of a mess of his own making, Martin had to rely upon the New Democrats who helped him rewrite his budget so there was something in it for Canadians. In the process he has reminded voters why it is a good idea to elect New Democrats to Parliament.

With the media spotlight shining, people are more able to see what Jack Layton has to offer and assess the concern for others that has motivated his career in politics. His respect and understanding of Parliament stand out, in contrast to the Conservative leader.

If Harper goes back to his tent to sulk, and Martin continues his hapless ways, maybe more people will want to hear from the NDP leader.

I don't always agree with Duncan Cameron however this article is dead on! Martin has been an unmitigated disaster but he is looking not too bad these days because of Harper's idiotic and braindead knee-jerk reactions to the Liberal tactics and antics.

[RightWinger]

During the next election, whenever it may be, Harper and the Conservatives need to start playing dirty, even if it involves blatantly lying or using sharp personal attacks on others, in order to even have a chance of winning a decent minority.

That would guarantee the further marginalization of the Cons. To which I say: go to it!

40% of Albertans are Left wing?? Can we see some stats on that?

2004 election results:

LIB 29.05%

NDP 9.79%

GRN 2.75%

Total: 41.49

How can you call Canada a democratic country? If you live in Ontario or Quebec it is democratic, if you live in the west or east, you're screwed! We live in a communist society which is run by Ontario & Quebec, if they don't like it, it doesn't fly. So you can take your sympathy and stick it up your ass, lets separate!!! If we can't separate, maybe Ottawa opens it's tunnel vision eyes and sees that we supply Canada with all the money to pretty up Ontario & Quebec!

Right. Whereas in Alberta, if you don't support the PCs you're screwed. We live in a one-party state which is run by rich Calgary oil execs, American insuransce companies and their lackeys in government who play off the phantom of western alienation to dominate people here in ways the federal Liberals could only dream of. Maybe its time you opened your eyes and cleaned up your own backyard before bitching about the feds.

It comes right down to the fact that, if you were born in Canada, spoke English first, male, heterosexual, with any religious background whatsoever, you're SCREWED!

Sad but true!

For a bunch of tough, independant minded folks, you Alberta cons sure are a bunch of crybabies. Your statement above is a perfect example of vacuous, unsupported b.s. playing on latent prejudices and typically Albertan "woe is me" paranoia. You liv ein a country run by rich white men, in a province run by rich white men for other rich white men. If you're feeling put upon, mabe you should ask the rich white men why they are screwing you over.

Let's take that a step further. The less people work, the more likely they are to support center or left wing parties.

proof?

If Jack Layton had his way, everyone would make $500/week and he would hold the purse strings. If you didn't vote his way, he would reduce it to $300/week, just so a person could survive! And welfare recipients would make $750/week!

People like you are the reason people don't trust the Conservatives. they see you and assume all the Cons are liars.

This is how you misunderstand Albertans. You mistake their desire for political freedom for being spoiled and wanting a uniform political state

Uh..Alberta is a uniform political state.

The correlation is between wealth and comfort and voting Liberal and NDP.

So which is it you guys? the stupid and ignorant? Or the rich elite?

I do find the modern working classes' tendancy to vote for the party least likely to represent their interests to be very intriguing. The working class tends to be to focussed on getting buy and thus don't have the education or time to devote to political analysis and are thus more likely to desire simple solutions to complex problems and are more succeptiable to the folksy, "down home" bromides favoured by right wing elitists such as Ralph Klein. As evidenced by this thread, they are also more likely to look for scapegoats for the inevitable failure of their political choices, be they "immigrants" "easterners" or "the well-off, the wine and cheese eating, gucci loving double income BMW drivers". No one likes admitting their wrong and Albertans seem especially prone to such thickheadedness, given their willingness to buy into the homegrown propaganda generated by the Klein Tories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me guess Blackdog, you were an alterboy in Newfoundland in the 60's in a Catholic church and the priest fancied you? He also must have told you he voted Conservative at one time?? When he actually was a hardcore NDP!!!

As far as right wing elitists go, Ralphy does a good job for Albertans, whether they are Liberal, NDP, Green or PC's. As far as homegrown propaganda, I was born and raised in Nova Scotia, spent a few years in Toronto, and moved to Alberta in the late 90's, so for you to tell me I am brainwashed by being born here, you're way off base. Alberta is the last true frontier, where a man can work and not be kept from a job, because he is not a woman, frenchman, or minority! It offers opportunities for people to get ahead without buying into a union frame of mind. Where you don't have to sell your soul for the promise of financial security!!

Maybe Martin could call Klein and see how to run a country??

Or just let Harper in and let him do it and we would all be better off!!

Hey Blackdog, your flag on your mailbox is up, your welfare cheque must be in, go get it!

[Black Dog]

Let me guess Blackdog, you were an alterboy in Newfoundland in the 60's in a Catholic church and the priest fancied you? He also must have told you he voted Conservative at one time?? When he actually was a hardcore NDP!!!

?

As far as right wing elitists go, Ralphy does a good job for Albertans, whether they are Liberal, NDP, Green or PC's.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time.

As far as homegrown propaganda, I was born and raised in Nova Scotia, spent a few years in Toronto, and moved to Alberta in the late 90's, so for you to tell me I am brainwashed by being born here, you're way off base.

No. Homegrown propaganda refers to the perceptiosn about Alberta generated here in Alberta. You don't have to be born here to get sucked in by it.

Alberta is the last true frontier, where a man can work and not be kept from a job, because he is not a woman, frenchman, or minority!

You forgot to mention the homosexuals. It usually comes down to the homosexuals with your kind.

Where you don't have to sell your soul for the promise of financial security!!

Actually, that's exactly what people in Alberta have done. They've been lulled into a stupor by self-congratulatory rhetoric and swelling ol and gas revenues and have exchanged a democratic, representative and accountable government for a arrogant, out of touch and power-hungry regime, all for the promise of continued

prosperity. I got news for you, sunshine: one day the god times will end, the oil will run out or the market will tank. Maybe then Albertans wil step back, survey their decaying streets and schools, their overcrowded hospitals and realize that the Alberta Advantage was all about short term gain.

Hey Blackdog, your flag on your mailbox is up, your welfare cheque must be in, go get it!

It says a lot about your attitude that the worst insult you can come up with is welfare recipient. But that's typical of your ilk, who fancy themselves tough and indpendent types, even as you fawn and cringe at the feet of your betters.

[RightWinger]

Alberta is the last true frontier, where a man can work and not be kept from a job, because he is not a woman, frenchman, or minority!

You forgot to mention the homosexuals. It usually comes down to the homosexuals with your kind.

Where you don't have to sell your soul for the promise of financial security!!

Actually, that's exactly what people in Alberta have done. They've been lulled into a stupor by self-congratulatory rhetoric and swelling ol and gas revenues and have exchanged a democratic, representative and accountable government for a arrogant, out of touch and power-hungry regime, all for the promise of continued

prosperity. I got news for you, sunshine: one day the god times will end, the oil will run out or the market will tank. Maybe then Albertans wil step back, survey their decaying streets and schools, their overcrowded hospitals and realize that the Alberta Advantage was all about short term gain.

Hey Blackdog, your flag on your mailbox is up, your welfare cheque must be in, go get it!

It says a lot about your attitude that the worst insult you can come up with is welfare recipient. But that's typical of your ilk, who fancy themselves tough and indpendent types, even as you fawn and cringe at the feet of your betters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't fancy myself as anything Black, fancying is for stool packers!

I consider myself and independant person, yes. I moved to Alberta because I grew up in the fishery that the Liberal gov't allowed to get ruined. I was not like what Stan Rogers calls "The Idiot". I wanted to work and not take the gov't dole. So I moved to Alberta where I could work & not draw welfare. And guess what? There is work here and people appreciate the ability of ambitious people to work!

Unlike some, who instead will wait for the gov't to wipe their sorry ass for them and not go look for a job.

The Alberta advantage is definitely the oil & gas and it is a non-renewable resource, but it is in huge demand and has to be respected as such and not taken for granted. This may be about short term gain, but I have never implied that Albertans think we are better than anyone else. What pisses most of us off is the lazy sacks of shit that will not get out of their own way to find work when work in Alberta is abundant and not descriminate of race, creed or color.

The only demand is that a person be ambitious and willing to work. The problem with today's people is that they are taught by the Liberals & NDP that they shouldn't work, rather get in a union and let someone else do the work for them.

I was told by a guy on a rig last year that according to WCB or OH&S that he does not have to lift anything heavier than 30lbs!!! Needless to say, he did not last, if he was lucky he got out of Alberta without someone kicking his ass. You goddamn left wingers think that we need regulations to keep people from working too hard. What a joke! I can see if the work is wrecking your body, but 30lbs, give me a break. When did lifting 30lbs ever hurt anyone? Unless we are talking about you blackdog and your dishpan hands, god forbid they get dirty!

I make jokes and call people fags & stool packers, but in truth I have nothing against homosexuals or minority groups if they will lower themselves to work along side of everyone else. What I don't like is self-righteous pricks who think they are above actual labour. I am as educated as the next guy and still I am willing to do labor work when it is necessary. I am not above any job if it means feeding my family. So many of the left wing crowd will not lower themselves, they expect the gov't to do it for them!

I do not think that homosexuals deserve the right to marriage, but that is my personal belief & support for the traditional definition of marriage. Some may call this view old school and that I am not objective, but where will it end?? What happens when Golden, BC demands the gov't recognize buligamy? Should a man have the right to marry more than one woman? Who are we to say? Or some group in northern Ontario decides they want the right for siblings to marry. It never ends! The gov't has recognized common-law marriage for any group and that is enough. It is walking the road to destruction in my opinion. "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"

Lastly, Blackdog, I can guarantee that I will never "cringe at the feet" of anyone and I consider noone to be my "better". If you think that you are better than me, you are sadly mistaken. I like to think we are all equal! That is the beauty of Alberta, rich or poor, we treat everyone the same, with what you may call our "redneck ways". One thing is for sure, if Albertans are rednecks, they are damn proud of it!!!

[Black Dog]

I make jokes and call people fags & stool packers, but in truth I have nothing against homosexuals or minority groups if they will lower themselves to work along side of everyone else.

Keep the hateful language and bigotry coming, buddy. I love it when the CPC "base" comes out to play.

I also love how you can bitch about "self-righteous pricks who think they are above actual labour", and thzn support a provincial government run by a man who's never lifted anything heavier than a two-six.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What an astounding mishmash of contraditions!

Here's one:

... I have never implied that Albertans think we are better than anyone else. What pisses most of us off is the lazy sacks of shit ...  taught by the Liberals & NDP that they shouldn't work, rather get in a union and let someone else do the work for them. ... lucky he got out of Alberta without someone kicking his ass. ... You goddamn left wingers ... I don't like is self-righteous pricks who think they are above actual labour.

Or how about this pair:

... in truth I have nothing against homosexuals or minority groups

...

I don't fancy myself as anything Black, fancying is for stool packers! ... I make jokes and call people fags & stool packers, ....

Or this one:

I am as educated as the next guy ... What happens when Golden, BC demands the gov't recognize buligamy?

Or this:

... if they will lower themselves to work along side of everyone else.  ... I am not above any job ... many of the left wing crowd will not lower themselves

...

I can guarantee that I will never "cringe at the feet" of anyone and I consider noone to be my "better". ... I like to think we are all equal! That is the beauty of Alberta, rich or poor, we treat everyone the same...

[RightWinger]

What an astounding mishmash of contraditions!

Here's one:

... I have never implied that Albertans think we are better than anyone else. What pisses most of us off is the lazy sacks of shit ...  taught by the Liberals & NDP that they shouldn't work, rather get in a union and let someone else do the work for them. ... lucky he got out of Alberta without someone kicking his ass. ... You goddamn left wingers ... I don't like is self-righteous pricks who think they are above actual labour.

Or how about this pair:

... in truth I have nothing against homosexuals or minority groups

...

I don't fancy myself as anything Black, fancying is for stool packers! ... I make jokes and call people fags & stool packers, ....

Or this one:

I am as educated as the next guy ... What happens when Golden, BC demands the gov't recognize buligamy?

Or this:

... if they will lower themselves to work along side of everyone else.  ... I am not above any job ... many of the left wing crowd will not lower themselves

...

I can guarantee that I will never "cringe at the feet" of anyone and I consider noone to be my "better". ... I like to think we are all equal! That is the beauty of Alberta, rich or poor, we treat everyone the same...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What the hell is your point? How do they contradict each other?

Taking shit out of context will get you nowhere!

[The Terrible Sweal]

What an astounding mishmash of contraditions!...

What the hell is your point?

That you have written a lot of nonsense.

How do they contradict each other?

In the first case you say Albertans don't look down on others, then you proceed to detail a lot of looking down on others.

In the second case you say you don't have anything against people, but you just use them as the butt of your grotesque sense of 'humor'.

In the third case, you claim a level of education belied by typing 'buligamy'.

In the final instance you insist that the rich and the poor walk equally tall, and so do you, but you repeatedly use terms such as 'lower oneself' regarding doing labor.

[RightWinger]

What an astounding mishmash of contraditions!...

What the hell is your point?

That you have written a lot of nonsense.

How do they contradict each other?

In the first case you say Albertans don't look down on others, then you proceed to detail a lot of looking down on others.

In the second case you say you don't have anything against people, but you just use them as the butt of your grotesque sense of 'humor'.

In the third case, you claim a level of education belied by typing 'buligamy'.

In the final instance you insist that the rich and the poor walk equally tall, and so do you, but you repeatedly use terms such as 'lower oneself' regarding doing labor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never claimed to be an author or a scholar by no means. If they are not in perfect sentence structure, then I apologize. How do you spell buligamy?

Hey Sweal sorry I don't meet your writing expectations!!

[The Terrible Sweal]

I never claimed to be an author or a scholar by no means. If they are not in perfect sentence structure, then I apologize. How do you spell buligamy?

Hey Sweal sorry I don't meet your writing expectations!!

I was not criticising your sentence structure, but rather the fact that your sentences indicated contradictory things.

Whether you are a scholar or not is not important to me, but YOU claimed to have a particular level of education. BTW, it is 'polygamy'.

As for writing expectations, bear in mind that what you are doing here is putting forward an opinion for others to consider. If your opinion is ill-considered, it is like asking a visitor to eat a poorly prepared meal.

[RightWinger]

All I have ever said about education was: I have as much education as the next person, not a doctorate or anything. I can also assure you, I am not the first person on here to misspell a word. You did get the idea I was shooting for though!

[RightWinger]

He was right on the spelling.... thanks

Here is a few websites for those of you pro-gay marriage people.

http://www.polygamy.com/

http://www.truthbearer.org/

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

http://coohmp.homestead.com/POLYGAMY.html

Although I am against it, like I am against gay marriage, there are some of you who don't realize that this si the next obvious step. Who here finds a problem with this?

If you do and are pro gay marriage, please explain why one is better than the other!

thanks

[Black Dog]

Moving right along....

Here we go  . You failed to mention the influence Walmart plays...

Although I agree Klien needs to go, they are nothing compared to the federal Libs.

I love that "phantom alienation" comment. As if the NEP, Kyoto, Gun Registry etc. etc. are figments of our imagination.

Whereas Klein Air, deregulation, auto insurance, ATB loan scandals, phantom consultants etc etc are the work of eastern elites?

The point, IMR, which you (surprise!) missed by a mile is that "western alienation" is exagerated in the west. It's a shell game. And you've been conned. (I mean, the NEP? Come on. That was 30 years ago, which is less time than the Tories have ruled Alberta)

I'm not sure I can provide you with proof that the sky is blue at this time, but I assure you it is. Lighten up my friend. BTW what is your profession BD? I'm wondering how you have so much time to waste on this forum?

My job is awesome. But anyway, my point was here:

I do find the modern working classes' tendancy to vote for the party least likely to represent their interests to be very intriguing.

Exhibit A: the Klein Tories.

Uh..Alberta is a uniform political state.

QUOTE

2004 election results:

LIB 29.05%

NDP 9.79%

GRN 2.75%

Total: 41.49

See, my understanding of "uniform political state" is that it's a state with a uniformity of governance. Apologies for not being clearer, but note I've been saying for a long time that Albertans' political differences are not accurately reflected by the electoral system.

You're repeating yourself. Examples: Paul Martin (AKA the Dirty Ditherer): "I love Kraft Dinner but I don't know how to make it", John Kerry: "I love peanut butter sandwhiches but my cook makes them for me", Belinda Stonach: her answer for everything is "it's very complex", Hollywood elite: very rich, very stupid and very liberal, ya we could go on but I think you get the point.

You don't appear to have a point. No on eof the people you cite are particularily progressive.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Although I am against it, like I am against gay marriage, there are some of you who don't realize that this si the next obvious step. Who here finds a problem with this?

Me! The problem with that is that polygamy is not an obvious step from SSMarriage at all. Marriage is a state sanction for one individual to pair with one other individual.

Polygamy is an apples to oranges situation. SSM is a red apples/green apples situation.

[RightWinger]

Although I am against it, like I am against gay marriage, there are some of you who don't realize that this si the next obvious step. Who here finds a problem with this?

Me! The problem with that is that polygamy is not an obvious step from SSMarriage at all. Marriage is a state sanction for one individual to pair with one other individual.

Polygamy is an apples to oranges situation. SSM is a red apples/green apples situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you think it is the next thing to face Canadians? And if it does why is their case so apples to oranges?

Who are you to decide?

I see the similarity in all of it. It is not a traditional defintion of marriage, but it is a practised thing just like gay marriage. Where is that line you draw? I would love to know, so that I don't cross it!!!

[Riverwind]

Don't you think it is the next thing to face Canadians? And if it does why is their case so apples to oranges?

Who are you to decide?

I see the similarity in all of it. It is not a traditional defintion of marriage, but it is a practised thing just like gay marriage. Where is that line you draw? I would love to know, so that I don't cross it!!!

First, all of our social institutions and laws regarding marriage are set up to deal with two people. It is not a big deal to extend these laws to include gays. Extending them to cover polgamy is not trivial (i.e. how would divorce work).

Second, polygamy is generally a bad deal for the woman and only exists in societies where the rights of women are supressed. Futhermore, these societies have to isolate and expel young men in order to make the polygamous math work out (in old times they would just be killed).

In short, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to make the case that the benefits to allowing polygamy out weigh the social harms.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Polygamy is an apples to oranges situation.  SSM is a red apples/green apples situation.

Don't you think it is the next thing to face Canadians? And if it does why is their case so apples to oranges?

As I already noted, marriage is a state sanction for a PAiR-bond. Homosexual couples wanted l access to a state sanctioned system which they were denied because of sex discrimnation. Polygamists are ot being denied something otherwise availale on discriminatory grounds. Rather, the relationship which they establish does not meet the state's objectives. Or put another way, the states ojectives for marriage can be met by homosexual couples, but (depending on the objective) not by groups of multiple persons.

Who are you to decide?

Society decides, through our institutions. I am merely telling you what I think that decision will be. If it were up to me to decide, i'D have civil unions for everyne and no government dfinition of 'marriage' at all