News   Apr 22, 2026
 629     0 
News   Apr 22, 2026
 405     1 
News   Apr 22, 2026
 387     0 

Who will be the next Liberal leader?

Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

^^^ yes you are correct...

The agenda is based on the values of integrity, family, respect for work, achievement, and commitment to a strong and free Canada.
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

The NDP also has a huge target on Dion, as they are concerned that he may split their base with his new found "green" approach to politics. Every chance they get, they reiterate to the media how green house gas emissions rose considerably under his watch as Environment minister, how he gave large subsidies to the oil and gas companies... etc.. etc... ad nauseum.

The federal NDP has never been elected, so they have no record. The Conservatives are in and don't appear to know what to do. The Liberals are making promises and... we'll see.

I put them all on equal footing.
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

The Conservative's definition of "family" has been identified as being exclusionist, their "integrity" as kowtowing to the U.S. corporate agenda, their "commitment to a strong and free Canada" as following the dictates of their U.S. political masters, and their "respect for work" as being tax advantages for people just like themselves.

Apart from that they're just plain folks.
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

The agenda is based on the values of integrity, family, respect for work, achievement, and commitment to a strong and free Canada.
That sort of talk's going to get you into trouble in these parts ;)
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

The Conservative's definition of "family" has been identified as being exclusionist
Their definition of family is what's been accepted as the norm for centuries, if not since the beginning of organized civilization. Plato may have had his boy lovers, and the Pharohs may have bred with their sisters, but even in these societies what we commonly today call a family (man, women, their own, or adopted kids) was the norm.

I imagine to a socon, their definition of family is inclusionist, in that it includes the vast majority of what we call families throughout the world today. It does not include SSM, incestuous couplings, common-law, etc..., but that's what social-libs are for.
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

That sort of talk's going to get you into trouble in these parts
We can agree to disagree and have a little fun eh? :b
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

Ah, another SSM-related thread drift.

Anyhoo, I've come up with this weird equation of Dion beating Ignatieff w/HBC one-upping Roots for the Olympic contract...
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

The agenda is based on the values of integrity, family, respect for work, achievement, and commitment to a strong and free Canada.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, they can't lay claim to these specific notions all for themselves. If they really wish to stand for these things, they should explain what they mean by them so as to distinguish themselves from the typical bland usage.
 
Re: >Re: Who will be the next Liberal leader.

where almost any activity is permissable and celebrated.
If an activity isn't hurting people or property, why shouldn't it be permitted?

Their definition of family is what's been accepted as the norm for centuries, if not since the beginning of organized civilization.
You mean women being subservient to their husbands? You're right, this modern concept of equality of the sexes goes against what's worked for thousands of years. Damn liberal ideas ruining everything.

The agenda is based on the values of integrity, family, respect for work, achievement, and commitment to a strong and free Canada
Wow, that's exactly the same as the NDP, Liberal, and Green agendas! If anyone's against families it's the Conservatives, since they don't want to acknowledge the families headed by gay couples.
 
You mean women being subservient to their husbands? You're right, this modern concept of equality of the sexes goes against what's worked for thousands of years. Damn liberal ideas ruining everything.
I'm speaking of marriage definitions, not female subserviance. Your just trying to confuse the issue.

In matriarchal societies, both ancient and modern, such as with Jewish and North American Aboriginal peoples, where the women held leadership roles, the usual definition of family still applies.

Personally, I don't care about SSM either way, let everyone have fun. Now, I will object to any PC agenda of bringing in books such as "My Two Dads" into schools, as much as I'd resist introducing My Burka and Me or Jesus Loves Me into schools. I can't stand social engineers of either the right or left trying to indoctrinate my kids. Let's stick to maths, science (that's Darwin, not Intel Design), music, English, phys-ed and history (yes, open to interpretation, but try to keep the PC version out as best we can).
 
Funny you haven't included polygamy, arranged marriage, extra marrital affairs and dowry as the norm, because they sure as hell are. If one intend to use the historicalist argument, one better be damn sure what one is getting into.

Viewing things through rose-coloured Judeo-Christian revisionist eyes again, aren't we?

AoD
 
The whole point of the school system is social engineering in one form or another - why do you think that the whole education process is govered by fairly rigid codes of behaviour and standards?

AoD
 
Funny you haven't included polygamy, arranged marriage, extra marrital affairs and dowry as the norm, because they sure as hell are.
Sorry I do not understand, why is this funny? Sorry, now get it you mean this as "curious" or "thought provoking". I had to look that up.
 
Personally, I don't care about SSM either way, let everyone have fun. Now, I will object to any PC agenda of bringing in books such as "My Two Dads" into schools, as much as I'd resist introducing My Burka and Me or Jesus Loves Me into schools. I can't stand social engineers of either the right or left trying to indoctrinate my kids. Let's stick to maths, science (that's Darwin, not Intel Design), music, English, phys-ed and history (yes, open to interpretation, but try to keep the PC version out as best we can).
The social engineering card is pretty much meaningless. When you prohibit murder and assault you're trying to discourage violence, aka social engineering. When you build highways you encourage driving. And when you tell gay couples they can't get married you're promoting inequality and discrimination. They're all social engineering.

Part of public schooling is encouraging certain values in our kids, everything from not bullying each other to being literate to respecting authority. Schools do talk about different religions, and they talk about different family arrangements. They teach kids to respect different religions, and that homosexuality is natural and acceptable. What's wrong with that?
 
Schools do talk about different religions, and they talk about different family arrangements. They teach kids to respect different religions, and that homosexuality is natural and acceptable. What's wrong with that?
Sounds too much like a Coca Cola commercial, with everyone living in harmony. Of course life isn't like that, since your support of Secular Humanism in schools goes very much against someone else's religious or more traditional views. For example, if a kid's religion tells him SSM is strictly forbidden and abhorent, teaching him that SSM is normal is conflicting with his religion and perhaps culture, but he is encouraged to forget his upbringing to join the new "accepting of everyone school". Basically, the only culture or "religion" that's permitted in schools is Secular Humanism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism, wherein everyone and everything is accepted, meaning of course that nothing is. Lord (allah?) knows, what they'll teach when polygamy and adult incestuous coupling is permitted. Of course, the public school has to be for everyone, if it's permitted, you gott'a teach it. That's why we see private schools popping up for different religions, cultures, etc., so they can have it their way only.

Well, enough from me on this. How about we get back to the Liberal Leader?
 

Back
Top