Why to support the Liberal Party

[adma]

Kkgg7 may represent a fairly extreme view but to be honest many reasonable Canadians feel that more NDP would be a bad thing.

Of course, just like vice versa re the Harper majority. (Or re "seriously consider leaving", think of how many Rob Ford opponents shared such sentiment following his election.)

But to be honest, bringing back capital punishment would go over as well as banning abortion or gay rights these days (and likewise, such causes *would* have their supporters, maybe surprisingly significant--not to mention culturally diverse--numbers thereof--whether they're "reasonable" is another matter entirely)

 

[adma]

Ah, as if kkgg7 was bad enough...

 

[kkgg7]

A comment on the gay issue: why is it important that being gay is genetic or not? Can't one just choose to be gay? All the gay rights activists seem to argue for one thing, that being gay is something one is born with and he or she doesn't have a choice and can't be treated. Where is the freedom of choice? One can choose to live in a house or condo, to work of stay home as housewives. Why can't they just choose to be gay? One would say "why would one choose to be gay if he/she is not" but that's so not the point. One should have the right to choose to live a homosexual life irrespective whether he/she has an alternative or not. The American actress Cynthia Ellen Nixon recently annouced that she decides to have a gay life, out of "choice", which probably emphasizes that she probably CAN have a normal marriage life with a man, but she chooses not too. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.

Yet people talk as if the gays should be given equal rights given the condition that they do NOT have a choice and their different preference is genetic. What if they do and it is not? Who gives the heterosexuals the right to strip them that choice?

Sure, gay couples can't have children and therefore they are different, but the same applies to couples which choose not to have children or can't.

Too often we take it for granted what we or the majority do is the right, and whoever does it a different way would need to jusify themselves. Who gives us the right to judge? Who gives us the right to define morality?

 

[adma]

And this, my friends, is how message forums die.

 

[abcde]

Perhaps you should research further what exactly Cynthia Nixon said instead of twisting her words out of context?

She recently caused controversy among the gay community when she told The New York Times that homosexuality was a personal choice for her.

But now, Cynthia Nixon has sought to clarify her comments further in a statement to The Advocate, telling them that bisexuality is not a choice, but her decision to be in a homosexual relationship is.
The Sex and the City actress has been in a relationship with education activist Christine Marinoni since 2004, and the couple had a baby son together last year.
She said today: 'My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay.
'I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can't and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive and disempowering,' she said.
'However, to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify: While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual.
'I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have "chosen" is to be in a gay relationship.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...y-comments-causing-outrage.html#ixzz1lebWZfzF

 

[js97]

The Dippers and Hard Line Torys love the polarization of the electorate (as seen in this thread). Dividing the country between 'us' against 'them' , both parties have been very good at tapping in the the selfish nature of their individual members. The reality is that Canada has been most propsporous, progressive, and a world leader under a centrist (and as a result, Liberal) government.

Imposing a one-sided view on another individual that holds very different ideals is divisive and if you can think about it objectively, is ethically and morally wrong. That's why Canada has been the most propsporous, and quite frankly, united, under the big red tent.

 

[pman]

The Dippers and Hard Line Torys love the polarization of the electorate (as seen in this thread). Dividing the country between 'us' against 'them' , both parties have been very good at tapping in the the selfish nature of their individual members. The reality is that Canada has been most propsporous, progressive, and a world leader under a centrist (and as a result, Liberal) government.

Imposing a one-sided view on another individual that holds very different ideals is divisive and if you can think about it objectively, is ethically and morally wrong. That's why Canada has been the most propsporous, and quite frankly, united, under the big red tent.

All those Liberal MP's Ontario elected over the years did a pretty good job of transcending any "us vs. them" considerations by never representing the interests of their ridings, communities or province. Unlike MP's from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, who pretty much had a single-minded focus on extracting more money from the federal government (i.e. from taxpayers in Ontario, Alberta and BC) for their constituents. So maybe the only surprise here is why Toronto voters continue to elect ineffectual Liberal MP's who don't appear to give a damn about even ensuring even basic fairness for Ontario, let alone actually bringing major federal dollars to the city.

 

[adma]

The Dippers and Hard Line Torys love the polarization of the electorate (as seen in this thread). Dividing the country between 'us' against 'them' , both parties have been very good at tapping in the the selfish nature of their individual members. The reality is that Canada has been most propsporous, progressive, and a world leader under a centrist (and as a result, Liberal) government.

Pre-1993, the (Progressive) Conservatives were arguably equally centrist. (And naturally, both parties were viewed as "natural governing" entities. It's just that the Liberals got their federal feces together for longer stretches of time.)

 

[Tewder]

The Dippers and Hard Line Torys love the polarization of the electorate (as seen in this thread). Dividing the country between 'us' against 'them' , both parties have been very good at tapping in the the selfish nature of their individual members. The reality is that Canada has been most propsporous, progressive, and a world leader under a centrist (and as a result, Liberal) government.

Imposing a one-sided view on another individual that holds very different ideals is divisive and if you can think about it objectively, is ethically and morally wrong. That's why Canada has been the most propsporous, and quite frankly, united, under the big red tent.

Wow, be careful of the koolaid.

 

[adma]

Wow, be careful of the koolaid.

Though I de-poisoned the koolaid by invoking the pre-1993 Tories as being similar in ilk (and indeed, provincially, in Ontario, the Tories were long *more* cosmopolitan-centrist than the Liberals, who were more of a small-town-and-farmer entity under Bob Nixon and his ilk)

 

[Tewder]

Agreed. The flavour of the day now is 'polarization' and is artificially sweetened.

 

[adma]

Coming across this slogan today made me think of kkgg7's earlier comment

 

[js97]

Pre-1993, the (Progressive) Conservatives were arguably equally centrist. (And naturally, both parties were viewed as "natural governing" entities. It's just that the Liberals got their federal feces together for longer stretches of time.) .

That is very true. Bill Davis years prime example. That being said, the Federal conservatives have done a 'reasonable' job of being not too right.

If the Federal NDP elect someone like Mulcair or Cullen, they too would end up a more centrist and balanced party. If you go with the union grunt, it will forever be limited to a special interest 1% party.

 

[kkgg7]

Coming across this slogan today made me think of kkgg7's earlier comment

Not that I am insulted by it, but I wonder how your comment is even logical or relevant.

I was proposing the gay should have the right to choose to be gay, without having to prove it is genetic.
Why do they need to prove it is genetic? All the discussion about tolerance toward the gays because they have no other option, is stupid and condescending to me. People should have the right to live any way they want (as long as it doesn't hurt others). Sleeping with people of the same sex can be a choice, just like choose to live downtown or the suburbs. They can just do it, without proving they are born that way. Anyone born in the way that they have to live in the suburbs?

All this "being gay is not a choice" statement makes me sick and disgusted, because it is a condescending attitude toward people with different lifestyle, as if, OK, I tolerate you because, well, you have no option and can't live like I, the normal people, do. This "being gay is a choice" statement is anything but liberal minded, as if people have to prove their difference is genetic to be able to live differently. It is anything but tolerant, but in "accepting" the gays, they in effect put them in a totally different camp, the camp that needs special protection and treatment, by the "normal people", and consider themselves as judges regarding what is acceptable and what is not.

Isn't that hypocritical? It is like the mainstream white people advocate rights for minorities, appearing to be "liberal minded", but in fact implicitly consider anyone non-white to be inferior and need the "special protection" of the majority white. If one is really liberal, you shouldn't distinguish people based on skin color in the first place, just like you don't distinguish people based on right or left-handedness in the daily life because that does NOT matter.

Let me ask, what if one person, being attracted to both genders, CHOOSES to be gay when he can live with a woman and have a perfectly normal family life? Does that make its life less tolerable than those who don't have a choice?

 

[nfitz]

No I don't.
I think killers should be executed. I believe in death penalty.

And I believe that those that sanction such killing are utterly evil, and will spend an ertenity burning in hell.