Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
westcoast99

137-132

Recommended Posts

STUPID people!!!! You gotta have a united right if we are to defeat the Liberals!!! ARG!

*Throw the NDP in the distuction category too*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see...

That could have made the vote 136 for to 133 against.

Yep...

We can sure count on the PCs when we need 'em, eh?

Hope you guys are proud of your useless, two-bit, wannabe party.

:angry: :angry: :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer...

...do we know yet if there were any Alliance abstentions?

As far as I know, four progressives voted against the motion, but I don't know if any more abstained/didn't show up.

I also believe that maybe three NDP-ers didn't vote. I guess we will know for sure in the next few days.

This all has the makings for an interesting election campaign next spring, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is'nt it interesting that the PC'ers here are mad about the vote, making gay marriage legal, yet if it was'nt for the PC's marriage would still be its traditional meaning.

The PC's continue to startle me with some of their antics

1. Supporting gay marriage, and undermining the democratic process, once again believing that the courts deserve more power than the democratically elected representatives.

2. Supporting Svend Robinson's bill, which will label the bible as hate literature, and force churches to become politically correct, and not attack the homosexual lifestyle.

This is why the PC's should not, and cant win power, they are almost like wannabe liberals, while the Canadian Alliance is once again the only party which supports democracy and liberty.

I dont know, maybe the east considers democracy and liberty as "redneck", or think that democracy and liberty are to "american"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This all has the makings for an interesting election campaign next spring, eh?

I don't think most people can even imagine right now just how interesting the next election is going to get.

This particular issue brings to a sharp point just how fast and far things are moving in this country, and just exactly who is stewarding this process.

A hell of a lot of people have come to their limit of tolerance of this process, and are now prepared to do whatever it takes to put the brakes on this process and slow it down, if not halt it altogether.

In the last couple of years, Canadians have stood by and watched this Liberal government crap all over long standing friends and allies of the last century.

They've watched Liberals reduce our military to mere shadow of its former relative greatness, to the point of virtual ineffectiveness, if not total collapse.

They've watched our centuries-long dedication to the ideals of freedom and liberty be reduced to expediency over principle.

They've watched billions being scattered to the winds like so much confetti on hairbrained, ill-considered bullsh*t like the gun registry...and then beheld a government that just plain does not give a damn about any of it.

They're watching a spectacle of arrogance, corruption, and outright contempt for democratic ideals such that I cannot ever remember witnessing the like in my lifetime.

The question in the next election on people's minds is this:

Who represents change from this ongoing gongshow?

Paul Martin? The very man who was virtually second-in-command through all of it? The literal CFO of the entire country who, as Harper pointed out today, didn't mind writing the cheques to finance all this crap and corruption?

This is "change"???

In a pig's ass it is!

Throughout all of it, and I mean ALL of it, only one party has stood against this neverending proliferation of crap and corruption by this Liberal government.

And in desperation, the Liberals often fell back to positions originally advocated by the Reform/CA in order to save their own sorry arses.

But...

It's no longer tolerable. It goes on and on and on, and it gets worse with each passing day, week, and month.

Now we behold the RCMP probing into the very heart of the Liberal Party to find out where this corruption involving advertising scams in Quebec starts and stops.

The Auditor General is due to release within weeks her cross-government audit of advertising. Considering the firestorm her audit of just one section of this portfolio stirred up, the likelihood of what is about to be revealed is bound to equate to a relative nuclear holocaust.

There is only one man on the federal scene that is capable of going head to head with Paul Martin on any stage or venue.

And there is only one party capable and prepared to assume the reins from these moral and integrity bereft bastards in the Liberals.

Canadians are starting to look for an alternative.

All they want to see is that:

a) Harper is intelligent.

B) He's got integrity.

c) He's got principles.

d) And that he's capable.

This will become abundantly clear between now and the next election. And it will become shockingly clear as Martin has to step forward from his closet to face Harper face to face in front of the nation.

Because Harper is going to tear this fruadulent son-of-a-bitch to pieces, one strip at a time, in clear, concise, terms that everyone will understand.

But more than that, Harper will have something to offer in contrast to Martin...

A policy platform with which the majority of Canadians can identify comfortably, a set of policies that fits well with Canadian values and principles that built this nation, and that have been the very backbone of this country since day one.

I'm not even going to mention Peter MacKay. He's a mere piker and rookey who completely pales to Harper's skills, talents, intellect, and ability.

The time has come in this company for the Liberals to pay the piper.

Remember Mike Harris and his PCs six months before he formed a majority government in Ontario in 1995.

And remember Mulroney and his PCs six months before he formed a majority government in Ottawa in 1984.

In both cases, each was nowhere on the political radar.

In both cases, each man rose to rip their adversaries to pieces and seize victory from virtually certain defeat.

Political futures spin on a dime, and without warning.

Martin is going to go down as the King who never was.

The illusion is about to burst.

Mark my words.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go Borotsik! He was my mayor when I was a kid. Was disappointed he went with PC but he does do a good job representing his constituents.

So Springer, do you really believe Harper will be the next PM? Or are you more realistic and think he'll just capture more of the vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on be realistic.

This vote is a party whipped vote, and elevates the Judiciary in Canada over Parliament.

Another Trudeau - Chretien legacy.

The slow dismemberment of political institutions in favor of Liberal judges and judgements.

Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

137-132

more liberal backbenchers voted for the motion, thenm against it.

carrying those numbers through cabinet (had they been able to free vote)

157-112

interesting split, consitering most polls show the public at 50-50

the parliament is more right wing then the voters are

thank god the NDP is tehre to keep things pon track. who know's what we would otherwise have... a parliament that voted AGAINST basic human rights?

unbelivable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank god the NDP is tehre to keep things pon track. who know's what we would otherwise have... a parliament that voted AGAINST basic human rights?

unbelivable.

Marriage is not a basic human right, and gays have been able to marry for centuries. Where have you been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote was meaningless anyway. It was a non-binding motion by the Alliance and the result doesn't make gay marriage legal (they need new legislation for that).

That said: HA! :lol: This will smooth the way for the inevitable establishment of gay marriage and in 20 years, its opponents will look a lot like Governor George Wallace vainly standing in the way of progress. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil marriages and Religious marriages are different. One is secular one is not. To elevate Gay marriage to the same level as normal unions contravenes common sense, and displaces the Church in favor of the State.

It is wrong on all accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support gay marriage, but not gay marriage.

in other words:

I support the right for gay people to leagally join in something CALLED marriage by themselvs AND the government. but not called marriage by the churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think marriage should only be recognized as a civil institution. People could still get married in church or synagoge or what have you, but would not enjoy the full benefits of the institution unless they also register under the civil institution. Church's would then be free to disallow whoever they please from getting married, while the civil institution would be open to all. It's time we cut the tumour of religion out of the body politic for good. Let's evolve already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think marriage should only be recognized as a civil institution. People could still get married in church or synagoge or what have you, but would not enjoy the full benefits of the institution unless they also register under the civil institution. Church's would then be free to disallow whoever they please from getting married, while the civil institution would be open to all. It's time we cut the tumour of religion out of the body politic for good. Let's evolve already.

100% agree!!! Government & Religion should not be mated with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about all civil unions being equal in regards to rights and privelage. Just label the document with the process on which it was achieved. ie. 'Civil Union through Crown Magistrate' or 'Civil Union through Catholic Marriage Ceremony' or 'Civil Union through Islamic Marriage Ceremony', etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think marriage should only be recognized as a civil institution. People could still get married in church or synagoge or what have you, but would not enjoy the full benefits of the institution unless they also register under the civil institution. Church's would then be free to disallow whoever they please from getting married, while the civil institution would be open to all. It's time we cut the tumour of religion out of the body politic for good. Let's evolve already.

thats what I said.

why is everyone so affraid of the word marriage?

fair is fair, either everyone has it, or no one has it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe in Gay marriage anyways. I have always been with the PC's all the way. The traditional meaning of Marriage should be here to stay.

I'm a PC member myself, and I think the government should recognize it. The churches can do whatever they want....Make legal to get married, by the state or if a church if it is willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simple soulition.

it takes a few steps

first of all, re-named marriage, "civil unions"

then, allow churches to instantaniously call all "civil unions" between a man and a woman, marriage.

this should make most people happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once this legislation passes, it is a given that one of the major churches in Canada will find itself in court defending itself for refusing to perform marriage rites for gays, you can bet on it.

Then the crapola is really going to hit the fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think marriage should only be recognized as a civil institution. People could still get married in church or synagoge or what have you, but would not enjoy the full benefits of the institution unless they also register under the civil institution. Church's would then be free to disallow whoever they please from getting married, while the civil institution would be open to all. It's time we cut the tumour of religion out of the body politic for good. Let's evolve already.

Edited by Gugsy

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...