Jump to content

Liberals widen lead


normanchateau

Recommended Posts

The polls were taken Nov. 29th +/- ;  the one I quoted was more recent.  :P

Right now polls mean nothing but a hill of beans, it can change in 24 hours :)- I think the conservatives have some momentum going for them at the moment, I'm guessing as they release their platform bit by bit we'll see bigger changes. Hmmm, sorta like a strip tease you know, maybe they are saving the best for last LOL (maybe a lesbian or two for NormanC )

ssssh!! I got it, a hidden agenda gift especially for NormanC. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper has already spoken on the issue and made his views quite clear.  ...I want my tax dollars spent on debating the issues that affect all citizens and not a select few.

I can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? :angry:

What if Harper had planned to take away the rights of a particular racial group? An ethnic group? A religious group? A group with physical disabilities? Should we not discuss this because it only affects "a select few"? Is this really how CPC supporters think?

How about if a Muslim country decided that they would take away the legal right of Christians in their country to marry and in future, Christians could form "unions" only.

Suppose only a few radical, political Christian activists spoke out about this issue which did not "affect all citizens" but only "a select few." Should the Muslim majority in that country not care about the human rights of the Christian minority?

Would it be more worthy of discussing stripping away human rights if we broadened the group so that it included a larger number of people?

Suppose Harper had said marriage should only be reserved for couples who can reproduce and therefore the future marriages of anyone else would henceforth be called unions. Any infertile women, gay men, hysterectomized women, sterile men and postmenopausal women would not be permitted to marry but they would be permitted to form unions. Since such a group would include more than "a select few", would the Liberals, NDP and BQ be wasting tax dollars debating this issue, or would the human rights of this larger minority group be irrelevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? 

My friend you are over stating your case and doing it in the wrong section. This topic is about polls. This morning Ispo had nationally Libs 33 and Cons 31. If you take into account a more efficient vote. (Unfortunatly the Tories are still not gaining ground in Quebec)The Conservatives are in the lead. Feels good to back a winner.

Now before the Chicken Littles starts to say the sky is falling realize the practical reality.

Harper is acting with integrity and being consistent with party policy. This policy would only change the title and not any associated rights. We would be like England or many of the other European countries.

To do this in a minority government would mean the majority of the house would have to vote for this debate to continue. Considering the positions of the other parties (30 of Libs were not in favour) this is still very unlikely.

The Conservatives are democrats and they didn’t see the party whip behaviour as a good sign for our democracy. If the house votes to move on they will.

Willy’s Back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper has already spoken on the issue and made his views quite clear.  ...I want my tax dollars spent on debating the issues that affect all citizens and not a select few.

I can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? :angry:

What if Harper had planned to take away the rights of a particular racial group? An ethnic group? A religious group? A group with physical disabilities? Should we not discuss this because it only affects "a select few"? Is this really how CPC supporters think?

How about if a Muslim country decided that they would take away the legal right of Christians in their country to marry and in future, Christians could form "unions" only.

Suppose only a few radical, political Christian activists spoke out about this issue which did not "affect all citizens" but only "a select few." Should the Muslim majority in that country not care about the human rights of the Christian minority?

Would it be more worthy of discussing stripping away human rights if we broadened the group so that it included a larger number of people?

Suppose Harper had said marriage should only be reserved for couples who can reproduce and therefore the future marriages of anyone else would henceforth be called unions. Any infertile women, gay men, hysterectomized women, sterile men and postmenopausal women would not be permitted to marry but they would be permitted to form unions. Since such a group would include more than "a select few", would the Liberals, NDP and BQ be wasting tax dollars debating this issue, or would the human rights of this larger minority group be irrelevant?

You have quoted a lot of supposition and I doubt very much human rights will be violated in the manner which you stipulate - just a bunch of fear mongering & so far fetched it is laughable, because you want your agenda on the top of the list which is quite evident. The issue of SSM has been debated and dealt with through the Courts and there is nothing more to discuss. You got what you pushed for so move on to issues that have been left for far too long and must be dealt with. Yes, I do not want my tax dollars spent on something that has been discussed & settled and laws now in place. Nor am I prepared to discuss suppositions which have absolutely no foundation to them other than fear mongering. How about dealing with the rights of fathers who have been denied liberal access to their children and criminalized without any proof - yes, thanks Liberals and NDP for their humanitarian compassion - does ssm take precedence over the rights of children and their fathers? But, hey we do not talk about this for fear of upsetting the feminists and losing their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? 

My friend you are over stating your case and doing it in the wrong section. This topic is about polls. This morning Ispo had nationally Libs 33 and Cons 31. If you take into account a more efficient vote. (Unfortunatly the Tories are still not gaining ground in Quebec)The Conservatives are in the lead. Feels good to back a winner.

Now before the Chicken Littles starts to say the sky is falling realize the practical reality.

Harper is acting with integrity and being consistent with party policy. This policy would only change the title and not any associated rights. We would be like England or many of the other European countries.

To do this in a minority government would mean the majority of the house would have to vote for this debate to continue. Considering the positions of the other parties (30 of Libs were not in favour) this is still very unlikely.

The Conservatives are democrats and they didn’t see the party whip behaviour as a good sign for our democracy. If the house votes to move on they will.

Willy’s Back

Whipped votes are never democratic. Yup, I sure agree that Harper is acting with integrity etc. He's making a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can't believe you just said that. To discuss taking away the legal human rights of "a select few" is a waste of money because it doesn't affect all citizens? 

My friend you are over stating your case and doing it in the wrong section. This topic is about polls. This morning Ispo had nationally Libs 33 and Cons 31. If you take into account a more efficient vote. (Unfortunatly the Tories are still not gaining ground in Quebec)The Conservatives are in the lead. Feels good to back a winner.

Now before the Chicken Littles starts to say the sky is falling realize the practical reality.

Harper is acting with integrity and being consistent with party policy. This policy would only change the title and not any associated rights. We would be like England or many of the other European countries.

To do this in a minority government would mean the majority of the house would have to vote for this debate to continue. Considering the positions of the other parties (30 of Libs were not in favour) this is still very unlikely.

The Conservatives are democrats and they didn’t see the party whip behaviour as a good sign for our democracy. If the house votes to move on they will.

Willy’s Back

Whipped votes are never democratic. Yup, I sure agree that Harper is acting with integrity etc. He's making a good start.

Thank you for bringing the topic back on course and a very good post as well. I certainly agree with you. Yes, I hope Harper stays the course. We need change badly and I for one am willing to give the CPC's that chance to make a difference.

To NormanC if you wish to discuss human rights, please open a separate thread for discussion. Please do not deteriorate this thread. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whipped votes are never democratic.  Yup, I sure agree that Harper is acting with integrity etc.  He's making a good start.

Starting a campaign by letting Canadians know that you'll be looking at the possibility of facilitating the removal of legal rights from gay men is really a poor start. No wonder

he's in fourth place now in Quebec. Not only is the BQ outraged by this but so I imagine are most Quebecers, the majority of whom favour SSM. And I wonder how the leader of the PQ feels knowing that the leader of the Oppicial Opposition is campaigning to take awasy his legal rights. If Harper had a bit more common sense, he'd dump this issue...permanently. It's a no-win proposition.

He's already flipflopped repeatedly on health care, demonstrating that consistency is not his strength. To make this issue the one on which he's inflexible is not a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,639
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    MikhailinNorthBay
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Griswold earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrakHoBarbie earned a badge
      One Year In
    • marcus earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • diwalikarwa earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mako went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...