Getting religion

[FarmRanger]

Public perception may have been that the gay marriage legislation was simply upholding a charter right, but that was not the case. Gay marriage was NOT deemed to be a charter right, and the courts threw it back into the hands of the politicians. So much for the democracy and the wishes of the majority. The simple fact is that most provinces gave all the same rights to gay couples anyway, only the marraige name was exclusively for traditional unions. Which is largely why I think the whole thing was a diversion of public attention from adscam and illegal diversions of taxpayers dollars to Liberal coffers.

You are right that there are conflicting stories in the Gomery inquiry, but since blame can't be assigned to individuals, it really won't accomplish much even if he does sort it out. When Gomery doesn't name names, (which he has not been explicitly given the power to do), the public will be expected to assume that no politicians are to blame, and it will be life as usual. The corruption will continue, with some modifications to procedure which will likely be ignored, like Canadian law was ignored in Chretians government, in which our current Prime Minister was a cabinet minister.

[farmers_son]

Actually how Ontario votes provincially does affect you as the provinces have considerable influence on federal policy through Ministers meetings and so on although they cannot decide who forms the government.

Maybe I am trying to make too fine a point which is viewing Federal politics in terms of Provincial voting patterns is contrary to nation building. Federally the Province of Ontario does not vote in a federal election. Neither does the Province of Alberta. The citizens of Canada do vote however. They reside in federal ridings not one of which is called Ontario or Alberta. The residents of Avalon, Beauséjour, Kings—Hants, Provencher, Blackstrap and Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission to name a few decide who will be their Member of Parliament who then represents them in Ottawa.

Viewed this way, every Canadian’s vote counts. Your vote counts whether you vote for the successful candidate/party or not. Making broad statements about how a certain demographic votes only breeds discontent and division. If you insist upon stereotyping, 1.6 million Ontarioans voted Conservative in the last election, more than in the rest of the country combined. I for one think it is unfortunate these statistics are kept. Why not include demographic information on each ballot so we can really understand our country better? Do you think it would be useful to know how women vote versus men? Or by race or by annual income. How about education or language? It is just as counterproductive to view federal voting patterns in provincial terms and it is just as irrelevant.

[FarmRanger]

If current polls are right, Ontario and the maritimes will be almost exclusively Liberal, the west will be almost exclusively Conservative, and Quebec will be almost exclusively Block. You can’t tell me that provincial voting patterns don’t make a difference.

Nation building is done with equitable treatment of all regions with justice being meted out fairly, while trying to uphold decent values we can all agree on. Unfortunately the Liberal governments we’ve been getting do none of the above and its fractionating the country to the point where we are going to have even more divisiveness and unrest because of it. There is no widespread acceptance of separation, and other such ideas in a well governed democracy. Time to cut the Liberals loose, and get some kind of government restructuring in this country before its too late. This fiddling while Rome burns, and pitting one area of the country against another has got to stop. It may get many people to vote Liberal out of fear, but its going to tear the country apart.

[silverback]

F_s, I don't believe our election system is fair at all.

The first past the post system does not accurately reflect the wishes of the public. The best system would be representation by population whereby if 30% voted liberal, 30% voted conservative, and 30% other, that would be how the makeup of parliment would be set at.

And as Ranger said, the gay marriage issue had nothing to do with their legal rights, they already had those in place. The issue is the ability of churches and other organizations to freely express their views without being drug out in front of the human rights commissions for disagreeing with what they want to.

[ivbinconned]

Debateing Farmers-son reminds me of the wise words of my dad.
"do not waste your time having a war of wit's with someone who is unarmed"

farmers-son I do wish your research and opinion went a little deeper than what the CBC regurgatates for you every day. Your obvious grasp of canadian history is very shallow.

I would urge you to read my last two posts of Mark Steyn...I hope you find them enlightening. But please don't then try to convince us that you are smarter than him.

[farmers_son]

ivbinconned: I was debating in this thread and I thought it was a pretty good discussion. Good comments from FarmRanger, Silverback and Emrald1.

Obviously the Liberals would not stand a chance in the next elecion if there was a unified opposition. But with the Bloc in Quebec and the Conservatives a non issue east of Manitoba the next election is the Liberals to loose. If there was a stronger opposition that offered a genuine threat of forming a government the gay marriage thing would not have happened.

I particularly liked silverbacks and FarmRanger's last posts.

[cowman]

Farmers son: Where did I advocate a theocracy? Or a dictatorship?
The present Conservative party is a watered down version of what the west really wanted...and even that isn't acceptable?
A triple E senate could have saved this country but unfortunately Martin couldn't even acknowledge the "democratic rights" of the people of Alberta to elect their senators!
Democracy, as we know it is mob rule! Without the most important right(the right to own property) the Charter of Rights is a sham! A republic is what the people should demand where the "rights" of the individual take precedent over the wants of the majority. If the individual has certain unchangeable rights then it doesn't really matter who is leading the country?
The only question I might ask about gay marriage is why do gays want the state meddling in their business? In fact why do hetrosexuals? Why do you need to sign a contract(license) with the state to get married? I thought the church and God sanctified marriage...not the state?
If you ever get a chance, read the book "Back to Slavery" by Gerry Spence. It gives one pause to realize how far we have slipped back under the control of our old masters! Everytime we give up some more of our freedom in the interests of "society", we diminish our ability to live as free men.

[ivbinconned]

What you think and what is reality can often be two different things. This is a truth that as you get older becomes more and more obvious and easier to admit. Hence my handle.

Debateing minor points and avoiding the major thrust of an artical is a tactic used by liberals to deflect attention...cute but unproductive!

[farmers_son]

Cowman: I agree with your statement on the State and marriage.

Democracy is more illusion than fact. If we do not get to elect our Senators I would point out that the Americans do not elect their President. Just like when Albertans voted for a Senator in the last Provincial election, when U.S. citizens vote for President they are just offering a suggestion to the Electoral College who are the ones who really decide who the President of the United States will be.

There can be no question that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms places limits and restrictions on the ability of our democratically elected Members of Parliament to represent the views of their constituents.

It has occurred to me that if property rights had been included in the Charter would that not have created a special right for some people, those people with property, that other people, those without property, did not have? The Charter as it is written includes rights that every Canadian can claim. Still too often we see the Charter being twisted by politically influential groups to achieve their ends.

You did not advocate a theocracy or dictatorship. The article was hinting at a theocracy where government policy is determined by religious doctrine. You did use the revolution word though.

[cowman]

Well farmers son, I can assure you I don't support a theocracy...in fact I consider most of the "Christian Right" a bunch of uninformed half wits!
That is not to say I am un-Christian or something! I have very strong beliefs...but no church dictates to me!
I don't think your comparison of Alberta senators elect is valid as compared to the American president? Although I do agree that both elected officials have a right to govern! Can you just imagine if some government body rejected the will of the American people?
Paul Martin spit in the face of every Albertan when he rejected the senatorial elections! It is an absolute shame and scandal that the media and most of the population brushed it off? Wasn't that democracy we killed?
Many times I've slammed Ralph Klein on these boards. But when the rubber hits the road, Ralph is a true Albertan and he knows what we need to stay in this country called Canada! Martin slammed the door....and few realize just what that means?
We have a duty, as patriots, to sit down and realize that this country isn't working, will never work, and throw our efforts behind the concept of a new country?

[cowman]

cowman, now much more of the Liberal corruption do you think it is going to take before the fires of western separatism get heated up ? I agree, we just seem to roll over and play dead regardless of how much sand gets kicked in our face.

[cowman]

emerald: It would seem that a lot of people couldn't care less? I mean after adscam, the total ripoff of the gun registry, the human resources scandal...can anyone doubt the whole government is totally rotten? And yet the Liberals remain right up there in the polls!
The fact is the people from some areas seem to understand that they are probably benifitting from that corrupt system? They also consider the new Conservative party too scary! I guess they have never actually read party policy on some of these "scary" positions? And of course the eastern based media is quite happy to promote these scaremongering tactics and down play all the corruption?
For the last twenty years Albertans have put their hopes in the idea that we can reform the system. We have elected representatives that have tried to promote those ideas. Again and again the voter east of the Manitoba border have rejected those ideas, even though we continued to water them down?
For a "Conservative" party to be successful we need to abandon every idea we ever had about a fairer system and embrace the centralist view that is basically the Liberal platform? So why even bother?
The day must come when we start electing a provincial government that will stand up for the reople of Alberta? I don't want to hear my premier saying stuff like "I'm a Canadian first of all"! Put some teeth into our province...just like Quebec has done?

[cowman]

I agree with your thoughts on this cowman. I think that the next leader of the Conservatives on AB. needs to have a strong vision of what direction our province needs to head in order to minimize the negative effects of what is happening federally. I have come to the conclusion that people don't care how corrupt a politician or government is as long as they get what they want from the system. In our county there was a huge mess on council, a self serving Reeve that made sure he had roads paved beside as much land of his own as possible, he charged an obscene amount for doing his job etc. In the end the provincial government ordered a complete review of the conduct of council and the review really tarred him, he was voted out in a huge majority last fall but there are still those who sing his praises !! The reason being that they got paved roads as well, because they happen to live near his property !!!! They know he was rotten to the core but as long as they benefitted from it they have no concerns with supporting his conduct !!!

Reminds me of Ontario !

[farmers_son]

Well lets see…Our federal leaders are corrupt, rotten to the core, and our municipal leaders are corrupt. Why leave out our provincial leaders? In fact lets go all the way, the voters of this country are corrupt too because everyone they vote into power is apparently corrupt. Everyone is corrupt except me and thee and sometimes I despair of thee…

The corruption word is easy to throw out to vilify any policy that you don’t like or to discredit any person or party an individual does not support. It serves a purpose in that it provides an easy answer to explain government policies and directions we do not understand or comprehend and saves us the effort required to think a little further.

Properly defined, political corruption means that government policies tend to benefit the givers of bribes, not the country. Political corruption encompasses abuses by government officials such as embezzlement and nepotism, as well as abuses linking public and private actors such as bribery, extortion, influence peddling, and fraud.

Simply disagreeing with government policy does not mean the government is corrupt. If any citizen of this country actually had evidence that corruption took place in this country it would be dealt with quickly by our legal system. I think corruption is very rare.

[silverback]

Do you actually believe some of that dribble you throw out there sometimes? Or are you just sitting there laughing as you type thinking of how a reply like that will drive others crazy?

Sometimes you make sense, but when you refuse to acknowledge the corruption in the Federal Government you lose all credibility to me.