If God he gave you a voice, then use it

SaturdayNightz · Post by **SaturdayNightz** » 1/13/2006, 4:31 am

i dont support wars or george bush, so I'm voting Liberals....I'm voting for the devil I already know.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 9:24 am

Joe Cooler wrote:
closeyoureyes wrote:
Joe Cooler wrote:Those Liberal commercials are the biggest load of bull I have ever seen.

*cough*
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2 ... -4938r.htm
The Washington Times wrote:Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.

Thats an excerpt from a Newspaper in Washington D.C. Not all the attack ads are bull.

As for repealing the gay marriage law, it won't happen. He can't accept its done, whatever, but he would have to ask the Senate to repeal it. And the senate won't repeal a law it just passed. So he'd need to go to the Govener General, who also approved the law, so he'd have to go to the Queen, who also had no objection. Therefore, he should stop promising to have a free vote on something that is already a law .

Joe Cooler wrote:The big issue for me is abortion. Yes, I know the Conservatives are not necessarily againts it, but my local conservative representative is, and that is one reason I am voting for him. Will abortion become illegal if he gets in? No probably not, but at least there is someone giving me a voice. To me, the RIGHT of the unborn to live is not something I can pass over.

Doesn't it bother you though, that your candidate, Maurice, has sacrificed his real view of abortion to be in the Conservative Party? Because as it stands, they are pro abortion, and would severely clamp down on any member who introduces legislation. Harper says himself he will not support it. So really you're not voting for the right of the unborn at all. You're throwing it away. Vote CHP.

Whether or not the article being quoted by the Liberals, exists or not means little to me. Its the fact that they'd actually quote that article in the first place that bothers me.

Secondly Sinead, no it does not bother me. In fact, I'm rather surprised that you'd say something as absurd as "vote CHP." If I am not mistaken the Conservatives are not pro-abortion. They simply will not try to challenge the law. Secondly, even if Harper is for abortion, Maurice is not. As it stands, he is the only candidate againts it in my riding. I am not throwing my vote away. Throwing my vote away would be supporting a party that believes that abortion is somehow a "womens right."

1. They didn't quote that article, it's just further support that I found. But their attack ad is true. Bush would be very pleased with Harper as PM.

Secondly, The Conservatives ARE Pro Abortion. They will not support any legislation to change the current abortion laws. = Pro Abortion. That is their official party stance. So yes, you ARE throwing your vote away. The tories will not dispute the law, therefore they endorse it.

namkablam · Post by **namkablam** » 1/13/2006, 10:41 am

Kathy · Post by **Kathy** » 1/13/2006, 10:57 am

Some interesting tidbits from the news this morning:

"HALIFAX—Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he's ready to reopen
the debate over Canadian participation in the American missile
defence system.....

The missile defence initiative, combined yesterday with a Harper
pledge to turn his back on the Kyoto accord and his refusal to
endorse a $5 billion deal for aboriginal aid, could signal the type
of major policy realignment Canadians can expect under a Harper
government."

"Despite pressure from the White House, Prime Minister Paul Martin,
who had repeatedly expressed support previously, announced almost a
year ago that Canada would not take part in the program, which has
been unpopular among Canadians"

.....

"Harper, 46, called the Kyoto treaty, aimed at combating climate
change, unworkable and unachievable....Environment Minister Stéphane
Dion said yesterday that abandoning the Kyoto protocol and its
targets for emission cuts would put a big smile on U.S. President
George W. Bush's face but would be "a tragedy" for Canada and the
world. "Canada has been a champion on climate change," Dion told the
Star's Peter Gorrie in a telephone interview. "I want Canadians to be
well aware of what's at stake. We're deciding something very
fundamental in this campaign."

"Also yesterday, in comments bound to upset aboriginal groups, Harper
stopped short of endorsing the $5 billion strategy to improve the
lives of natives, struck by Martin in a meeting with premiers and
community leaders."

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/13/2006, 11:18 am

closeyoureyes wrote:
Joe Cooler wrote:
closeyoureyes wrote:
Joe Cooler wrote:Those Liberal commercials are the biggest load of bull I have ever seen.

*cough*
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2 ... -4938r.htm
The Washington Times wrote:Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.

Thats an excerpt from a Newspaper in Washington D.C. Not all the attack ads are bull.

As for repealing the gay marriage law, it won't happen. He can't accept its done, whatever, but he would have to ask the Senate to repeal it. And the senate won't repeal a law it just passed. So he'd need to go to the Govener General, who also approved the law, so he'd have to go to the Queen, who also had no objection. Therefore, he should stop promising to have a free vote on something that is already a law .

Joe Cooler wrote:The big issue for me is abortion. Yes, I know the Conservatives are not necessarily againts it, but my local conservative representative is, and that is one reason I am voting for him. Will abortion become illegal if he gets in? No probably not, but at least there is someone giving me a voice. To me, the RIGHT of the unborn to live is not something I can pass over.

Doesn't it bother you though, that your candidate, Maurice, has sacrificed his real view of abortion to be in the Conservative Party? Because as it stands, they are pro abortion, and would severely clamp down on any member who introduces legislation. Harper says himself he will not support it. So really you're not voting for the right of the unborn at all. You're throwing it away. Vote CHP.

Whether or not the article being quoted by the Liberals, exists or not means little to me. Its the fact that they'd actually quote that article in the first place that bothers me.

Secondly Sinead, no it does not bother me. In fact, I'm rather surprised that you'd say something as absurd as "vote CHP." If I am not mistaken the Conservatives are not pro-abortion. They simply will not try to challenge the law. Secondly, even if Harper is for abortion, Maurice is not. As it stands, he is the only candidate againts it in my riding. I am not throwing my vote away. Throwing my vote away would be supporting a party that believes that abortion is somehow a "womens right."

1. They didn't quote that article, it's just further support that I found. But their attack ad is true. Bush would be very pleased with Harper as PM.

Secondly, The Conservatives ARE Pro Abortion. They will not support any legislation to change the current abortion laws. = Pro Abortion. That is their official party stance. So yes, you ARE throwing your vote away. The tories will not dispute the law, therefore they endorse it.

Again Sinead, I'm voting for a person not a party. Secondly, the article you found does little to support the Liberal ad. It's a commentary written in an american newspaper for goodness sakes. You can't possibly use that as "proof." Its just another persons opinion that happens to coincide very closely with the Liberal ad. What really got me was the Liberal ad that went sort of like this.

"The conservatives have a lot of money. We don't know where it came from. No one does. Bush seems to like Harper and he has a lot of money... maybe he gave it to them. Maybe... We just don't know."

Of course it never went exactly like that but in all seriousness I have never seen such a dumb ad. The Liberals can do better.

thirdhour · Post by **thirdhour** » 1/13/2006, 1:11 pm

The point of that ad was that Harper refuses to reveal who has supported him with campaign donations. For a party that's basically running on getting rid of corruption in Ottawa, you'd think transpancy would be pretty important to them.

That Conservative ad talking about Martin's doctor running private clinics made it seem (at least to me) that Martin himself uses private clinics when that's not the case at all. Martin has been using the same doctor for years, and has never paid for healthcare, and years after he started going there, this doctor also started some private clinics (which Martin never used, and were within the rules of the Canada Health Act.) However, I was watching an interview with Martin yesterday when this came up, and he did such an amazingly shitty job of defending himself that I cannot believe he's gotten this far with such terrible communication skills.

The Conservative and NDP campaigns have just been straight-up better than the Liberal campaign. Both those parties have been clear and direct, coming out on the offensive, while Liberals have kind of forced themselves into a defensive position, which hasn't exactly won them any votes.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/13/2006, 2:30 pm

Of course, I could see the point of the ad, I just think they could have been a lot more tasteful than they were. Again, I'm not hating on the Liberals, nor am I saying that the conservatives are some how innocent of this ad war.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 4:59 pm

Fair enough, vote for the person. But the person still will leave abortion alone. He isn't going to bring up legislation against it. He may be pro life as a person, but when in government, he will allow it to go on. He isn't going to stand up for a babys right to life in parliament. Its all fine and nice to say "I believe that a baby should live!" But he isn't going to stand up for it, so his pro-lifeness is completely irrelevant.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/13/2006, 5:42 pm

He will and has stood up for it. But thanks.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 6:07 pm

Is he going to change it?

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/13/2006, 7:03 pm

Probably not but at least my views are being presented. Is the NDP going to get elected? No, but you still vote for them Sinead so I'm sure you understand.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 7:46 pm

They will in my riding. That's how the electoral system works Taylor! Seat by seat.

I vaguely remember you lecturing me on this about a year ago, after we'd fought about Harper.
:lol:

I dislike how no matter what, I will never have an electable party that supports all my views.

thirdhour · Post by **thirdhour** » 1/13/2006, 7:50 pm

An NDP mp is going to stand up for ndp-esque views in parliment, but probably won't get a major ton changed because they're not in power. Same thing with taylor's candidate. He'll stand up for what he believes in, even if it won't nesicarily change everything.

If there's no party that supports all your views, why are you against him voting for a party that doesn't nesicarily support all of his?

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 1/13/2006, 8:05 pm

closeyoureyes wrote:They will in my riding. That's how the electoral system works Taylor! Seat by seat.

I vaguely remember you lecturing me on this about a year ago, after we'd fought about Harper.

I dislike how no matter what, I will never have an electable party that supports all my views.

I know it works seat by seat Sinead. When I said the NDP won't get elected, I meant they would not win the election, and I'm sure you realized that was what I meant.

don't ask why · Post by **don't ask why** » 1/13/2006, 9:04 pm

so the riding where i live in now was where the sketchy conservative zeitrane got caught smuggling alcohol and a mercedes. he also got into a sketchy car accident between trail castlegar where his vehicle caught on fire.

lucky for me, i still vote on the sunshine-coast riding.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 9:05 pm

I was unsure. Ofcourse they won't win. That's not going to happen in my lifetime. An opposition, maybe. The Conservatives will win. The question now, is whether or not it will be a minority or a majority.

If it is a minority, there'll be another election in a year. Well, atleast by the next election i'll be legally able to vote.

redhotlover wrote:If there's no party that supports all your views, why are you against him voting for a party that doesn't *necessarily* support all of his?

Because his biggest biggest hugest vote deciding factor, being pro-life, happens to not be supported by the party he is voting for. That's the only reason I said anything. [/quote]

thirdhour · Post by **thirdhour** » 1/13/2006, 11:28 pm

love ya too baby. :sugar:

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 11:31 pm

redhotlover
:sugar:

thirdhour · Post by **thirdhour** » 1/13/2006, 11:38 pm

You're such a freak, but I'm sure you know that already. :lol:

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 1/13/2006, 11:41 pm

I TOP the freaks.