WR Leadership Follow Through

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Roughneck12

Sorry, they never said anything about privatizing health care. They said they would use private providers to provide needed services that are backloged like MRI's etc and pay for those services so that people didn't have to wait and die for the public system to provide the service.

Thinking that a provincial gov would or could privatize the healthcare system is stupid and absurd. The provincial goverment has to live with in the law of the land on the subject which is federal and called the Canada Health Act I believe.

Had to call bs on that one.

Exactly.

Of course it was b.s. What else would you expect from eastcoast?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Good Post.
Mistigan, as you know from a previous thread, I do not share the same faith as you. However I do believe that you and I have the right to be represented by people who believe the way you or I do. If we do have freedolm of religion an Evangelical Christian or any other religious person should be allowed to stand for nomination and if supported, stand as a candidate. There is no freedom of religion if that freedom does not also include standing for elected office.

Well said.

Progressives want us to believe that having practicing Christians in office amounts to Visigoth hordes at the walls.

Rubbish. The fear they want to instil on that account is also rubbish.

Don't eat it.

[Roughneck12]

Originally Posted by MAC

Alberta has to -
Uphold the five key principles of the Canada Health Act, namely that healthinsurance coverage is publicly administered, comprehensive, universal,portable and accessible.

But they can allow private delivery as the Wildrose is promoting. By making you pay for any cost above the basic cost allowed by the province, they
allow those that can afford to pay access to faster treatment by getting out of the public line. Cant afford the difference tough, get back in the public line.

From the Greenbook-
"Further reduce surgical and specialist wait times by funding neededservices for Alberta patients outside the province should timely access to amedically necessary procedures be unavailable in Alberta. In such cases, thecost to the Government to have that same procedure performed in Alberta would instead be sent to the out-of-Alberta health provider. The patientwould be responsible for costs over and above that amount."

Read the last line from the above quote from the Policy Greenbook.
I never heard any candidate speak of this condition that is attached to the "we will send you out of province for care if the lines are to long"
promise.

Rocky7 Its not about what is in the WR Platform , its about what is not in the Platform.

I don't have a problem with my health insurance pi cking up costs above and beyond what the gov is willing to pay, if they will. If not I will pay out of pocket.

[dantonsen]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Well said.

Progressives want us to believe that having practicing Christians in office amounts to Visigoth hordes at the walls.

Rubbish. The fear they want to instil on that account is also rubbish.

Don't eat it.

I think the conservatives just don't want bigots in office People who practice religeon and keep to each their own about beliefs are fine.

[darius]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Exactly.

Of course it was b.s. What else would you expect from eastcoast?

you calling me east coast is about as accurate as your election predictions .

this all adds up to how out of touch you really are . . .

[riden]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Where it once seemed popular to gay bash, now it seems popular to bash Christians. Both types of bashing are wrong and are often done by those who think they are right. If you are really concerned with the influence of religion on politics, you should look into the religious belief of religions other than Christianity. I hear no one questioning other candidates about their religion. To do so would bring out a media flamed cry of intolerance. Here and now on earth, those who have to put up with the most of this bull poop just happen to be Christians. Here and now, Christians are the most tolerant. I do not believe the same thing that Hunsberger believes but I am glad that Smith as a leader stood up for him. I read all sorts of stuff on the other dude and his caucasian thing and from my point of view all said, he was not a racist. I am also glad that Smith stuck up for him.

I get the feeling you are accusing me of bashing evangelicals, maybe I am wrong. But that is simply untrue if you think that.

I feel I am stating the obvious, I don't feel it has much to do with religion at all. Taking the Hunsberger example, his views on homosexuals alienate a large percentage of the population. Fair to say 30%?

When he started bashing Edmonton Public Schools, he is talking about evolution and the biblical age of the earth and what he thinks should and should not be taught to students. Also issues with science, scary science. Again, how many people have you alienated? AS soon as you say "some people" believe the world is millions of years old....you have alenated a lot of people.

If you have these views you are entitled to them, but you also have to own the fact you are alienating the people you are judging. You can't hide behind freedom of reliion on these issues.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by darius

you calling me east coast is about as accurate as your election predictions .

this all adds up to how out of touch you really are . . .

Gee Darius I expected you to be taller.

[MAC]

Originally Posted by Roughneck12

I don't have a problem with my health insurance pi cking up costs above and beyond what the gov is willing to pay, if they will. If not I will pay out of pocket.

OK Thats fine. But what would you call this system, for arguments sake.
I would not consider it public healthcare across the board. But it is also not privatized. I would say it is queue jumping. Getting treatment ahead of others by paying out of pocket above the goverment rate does seem like a two tier system. You may be alright with this, and that is ok I am not making an argument by judging anyone. But I am not alright with faster better healthcare for those who can afford it and a slow overloaded system for the rest.
To be clear I am not arguing about who is better or why the PC won.
I like the Wildrose party just not some of their policy. The reason I am on here discussing these points and questioning the Wildrose policy is to better inform myself. My MLA is PC and I am going to push for change. Healthcare is broken and cannot stay as is and we cannot throw more money at it or walk in clinics, that will not resolve the issues. I want to hear ideas and thoughts from the Wildrose supporters to better understand how you see it.
The Wildrose policy to me is vague and not clear. When I take it at face value and apply it , I dont like the system it creates.
I am going to approach my MLA with Ideas and suggestions with what I want.
Four more years of this is not going to fly. I intend to push about issues and hope that The Wildrose are just as pushy and just maybe they will listen and act.
So please respond regardless of your position I am not looking to argue, I am looking for opinions and information so I am better informed.

MAC

[Ali]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Right back at you.

And you can start my chain of thought on your hypothetical irony with our immigration policies. It's far more ironic than you appreciate.

And yes, staffing is the simple and sensible answer.

IF we are going to let Muslim doctors practice here, we should not force them to do something offensive to their conscientious faith. That might very well mean a Muslim doctor is not put into a community where he's the only doctor. Note the "IF".

The successful WR candidate in Camrose thinks the difference was that rural people have more common sense. I think he has a point. We don't tend to structure our government in order to ward off imaginary problems. We tend to deal with stuff as and when it comes up.

We also tend to have a conscience.

I wonder if that word "conscience" hasn't become politically incorrect? You don't hear it much any more. It might be another taboo. Lord knows, we've got lots of them.

Ever read Chomsky?

edit: Since you're interested, I found this: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethic...al_beliefs.asp

Is this the real Alberta vs the not real Alberta argument?

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by riden

I get the feeling you are accusing me of bashing evangelicals, maybe I am wrong. But that is simply untrue if you think that.

I feel I am stating the obvious, I don't feel it has much to do with religion at all. Taking the Hunsberger example, his views on homosexuals alienate a large percentage of the population. Fair to say 30%?

I am not accusing you of anything other than the same old, same old that is often said about evangelicals. Yes they do believe certain things that some have a hard time swallowing. It was not that long back that it was the same old, same old about homosexuals. Now I do not agree with the evangelicals religious belief or homosexuality in general. That is just me! I think that there is some very good people who are evangelical and some very good people who are homosexual or gay. I would vote for them in an instant if they were with the party and platform of my choice. I think that they should represent their religion or life style and speak up for who they are. I would also trust them not to push some agenda, as if they could I am secure enough in my faith and my sexuality that I do not fear either. I think that the nomination process should determine the best candidate to run for the party and if religion or sexuality is an issue simply don't vote for them.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by dantonsen

I think the conservatives just don't want bigots in office People who practice religeon and keep to each their own about beliefs are fine.

I think that the PC have about the same percentage of bigots in office as everyone else. Now about "People who practice religeon and keep to each their own about beliefs are fine" Those guys? How do they answer when the media or a constituant asks them a very specific question about their religion? Do they refuse to answer? Do they lie?

I think the PC have mastered the art of pointing fingers better. That's politics!

[hal53]

Originally Posted by MAC

OK Thats fine. But what would you call this system, for arguments sake.
I would not consider it public healthcare across the board. But it is also not privatized. I would say it is queue jumping. Getting treatment ahead of others by paying out of pocket above the goverment rate does seem like a two tier system. You may be alright with this, and that is ok I am not making an argument by judging anyone. But I am not alright with faster better healthcare for those who can afford it and a slow overloaded system for the rest.
To be clear I am not arguing about who is better or why the PC won.
I like the Wildrose party just not some of their policy. The reason I am on here discussing these points and questioning the Wildrose policy is to better inform myself. My MLA is PC and I am going to push for change. Healthcare is broken and cannot stay as is and we cannot throw more money at it or walk in clinics, that will not resolve the issues. I want to hear ideas and thoughts from the Wildrose supporters to better understand how you see it.
The Wildrose policy to me is vague and not clear. When I take it at face value and apply it , I dont like the system it creates.
I am going to approach my MLA with Ideas and suggestions with what I want.
Four more years of this is not going to fly. I intend to push about issues and hope that The Wildrose are just as pushy and just maybe they will listen and act.
So please respond regardless of your position I am not looking to argue, I am looking for opinions and information so I am better informed.

MAC

Until we the public realize, and politicians have the 'Nads to say it, the system of public health care and Tommy's vision was that it would pay for catatrosphic illnesses, one that John Q. Public would be bankrupted by, the individual would still pay for Dr's visits, minor ailments etc. That has since evolved into a system (remember the CCF that dreamed it up, is now the NDP) that nobody pays anything and everyone uses it for EVERYTHING...the system as it is now is not sustainable, yet we hear the same politicians screaming about Privatized care and scaring the pants off people thinking that they won't get to run to the ER cause their kid has a runny nose or a woman needs a PT done. 2 Tier system would only take the people out of the queue that legitametly need a procedure performed and would rather pay than wait in a long line up of un-necessary procedures. That would therefore lessen the wait times for all involved. But it's about politics and getting elected to get your snout back in the trough....sad really...

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I think that the PC have about the same percentage of bigots in office as everyone else. Now about "People who practice religeon and keep to each their own about beliefs are fine" Those guys? How do they answer when the media or a constituant asks them a very specific question about their religion? Do they refuse to answer? Do they lie?

Well said.

Many posters prefer the lie, it seems. They claim that they can tolerate a practicing Christian in office and yet they rail against his or her truthful answers to specific questions from the media. Seems to me that the only way around that is to lie.

"You can't handle the truth!"

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Ali

Is this the real Alberta vs the not real Alberta argument?

Is this the "Let's pretend we never read the link" dodge?

How come the UK can come to grips with conscience rights in medicine but the New Alberta does not want to talk about it?

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethic...al_beliefs.asp

[dantonsen]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I think that the PC have about the same percentage of bigots in office as everyone else. Now about "People who practice religeon and keep to each their own about beliefs are fine" Those guys? How do they answer when the media or a constituant asks them a very specific question about their religion? Do they refuse to answer? Do they lie?

I think the PC have mastered the art of pointing fingers better. That's politics!

I'm guessing you did a PC bigot survey to figure this percentage out?lol

well if PC's have bigots in their party they keep it to themselves and their leader certainly doesn't support public bigotry.

Maybe the politician should just not answer the question instead of making a douche bag/bagette out of him/herself in public and giving the party a bad reputation?

There is a reason most countrys seperate religeon and government, this is a debate that was solved over 100-200 years ago in some countrys... This debate is like beating the tree that grew on the dead horses grave site after it was beaten too many times

[riden]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

First off, I didn't read this whole post, but will. I was away for several days without internet connections.

I did vote before I left. I have always been a PC supporter. My vote was sealed by Danielle Smith standing up for freedom of speech and religion. That took real Leadership (not politically expedient, reactionary 'leadership' - as exhibited by the other party's 'leaders'). I think she well knew the reaction would be negative, but she stood on personal principles anyway, and that carries a lot of weight with me.

Now, what really upsets me in the whole affair is that now it is clear that in Alberta a Christian who holds to traditional, orthodox Biblically informed beliefs can no longer expect to hold political office, and maybe can't even expect to have a voice in it. The reaction of the leaders of the other parties, assisted and upheld (I would even say provoked) by the media, eliminates us - based on our belief system - from leadership roles in mainstream society. As I read it, it was clear to me that those other leaders and many media pundits and even some on this board are saying that people with "those beliefs / views" don't deserve a voice or role in public discourse.

And once again we see the intolerance of the doctrine of 'tolerance'.

How have we gotten to this point?

And why?

Where is this trend going to lead?

I should add one thing though, and I don't mean to paint in broad strokes, and no I don't know what you believe in.

But if any traditional, orthodox Christian beliefs happen to involve subordination of women, then it is foolhardy to expect to hold public office in this century. And for good reason.

To be clear too, I have sat in many evangelical churches, including many weddings and have heard their definition of equality. I don't mean, equal but a helper only, whose role is to provide input and stand back and allow the man to decide. Whose role is to respect her man, and the man's role is to love the woman (notice I didn't say respect).

I mean truly equal, not some wacky definition of equal.

But again, if that is what you believe, your time has past, and we are better off. And it isn't a trend any more than ending slavery was a trend.

But again, I don't know what you believe, and I am not trying to flame you if this does not apply.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by dantonsen

Nope! No survey! No need to guess! Just what I think as I said.

That's what she says!

I do not see how telling the truth is being a douche?
I think telling lies is what makes one a douche!



There is a reason most countrys seperate religeon and government, this is a debate that was solved over 100-200 years ago in some countrys... This debate is like beating the tree that grew on the dead horses grave site after it was beaten too many times

Actually that's separation is church and state! Most governments protect the freedom of religion! Our government claims to protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Be carefull what you think you want. If you do not protect freedom of religion for all and respect the diversity of religion you may open the state up to an atheist state like the old Soviet state or worse allow certain religion to take over politics and the state and run the government like a theocracy! You know, like religious law becomes the law of the land. It is talked about in Canada you know? The first step is to bann religion and to be specific get rid of those Christians.

Which countrys do you claim that have solved this debate? As if a debate could be solved

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Yéil

Rocky, I believe the reference of Dr Stephen Dawson refers to the Ontario doctor who is now before the disciplinary board of the Ontario College of Physicians for refusing to prescribe birth control to women.

Yes, I tracked that down. I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I would like to hear your take on this set of policies. It seemed to me to strike a pretty good balance between the issue of access and the issue of a doctor's conscience:

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethic...al_beliefs.asp

The practise of doctors not prescribing certain treatments and medications has been going on much longer than anyone on this board has acknowledged. http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues...bortion21.html

Indeed it has. Those on the Left and in the PC camp don't want to talk about it.

I know some doctors. And quite a few nurses. Anybody who thinks their personal beliefs don't play into the medical care and choices they offer and the procedures they are willing to do is, to put it very politely,.......flatly wrong.

What the WR proposed is something that is already entrenched with the medical community as acceptable practise with respect the doctors.

That was my understanding as well. Hence, it is hard to understand why some ran around with their hair on fire about it - except to whip up fear against WR candidates. I can see that from the Progressive side; they never want to hear opposing viewpoints.

Now, JPs and other professions it is not so clear as to whether they can object/decline a service based on a moral or conscience belief. While church clergy can refuse to marry someone based upon the church's doctrine - ie the Catholic church and divorced person who have not had their previous marriage annulled, a judge or JP or a person licensed to perform as an officiant at marriages can not refuse except under certain circumstances -

I see your point. It might be a mostly hypothetical snag, anyway, as I don't imagine many religious people are looking for a J.P. to get married, nor are religious J.P.'s going to be much interested in usurping what they would see as the role of priests and ministers. Still, I see the point in treating them differently.

I just wish the law societies would support lawyers at having the right to exclude certain criminal matters from their field of practise. I detest the idea of dealing with child porn, child abuse, sexual assaults or spousal murder defence cases. I don't like reading about them in novels or watching TV shows that have it as a subject matter yet I am required to take on clients who have been accused of these crimes. I can be disciplined for refusing to represent a client based on the nature of the alleged offence. Because of the risk of censure, I have to limit myself to a field of practice that does not include criminal law - an area that I specialized in. As a female and a mother and grandmother, I just don't want to have to deal with people who allegedly harm children. I can't claim a religious observance just a plain old love of all things wonderful about kids.

That is a perfectly understandable sentiment.

You are correct - you cannot take on the role of Judge. It is very, very thin ice. The minute that lawyers, or police officers, take it upon themselves to decide who gets defended or what evidence gets covered up, is the moment they must take personal responsibility for getting it wrong. And, sooner or later, you would and they will. Hence, you should indeed be able to stay out of a case where you cannot give it a full effort. Similarly, police need to put all the evidence forward fairly and trust the rest of the system to do its job, knowing perfection is impossible.

You should have the right to decline. Not for some spurious reason, but for some deep personal convictions - yes.

It seems much the same with doctors, to me. The one reason is obvious - to allow them to live with themselves. The other reason might not be so obvious - to avoid putting people under the care of someone who is going to diagnose or recommend alternate things.

With the one approach, we are honest and respectful. With the other, we play pretend.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

First off, I didn't read this whole post, but will. I was away for several days without internet connections.

I did vote before I left. I have always been a PC supporter. My vote was sealed by Danielle Smith standing up for freedom of speech and religion. That took real Leadership (not politically expedient, reactionary 'leadership' - as exhibited by the other party's 'leaders'). I think she well knew the reaction would be negative, but she stood on personal principles anyway, and that carries a lot of weight with me.

Now, what really upsets me in the whole affair is that now it is clear that in Alberta a Christian who holds to traditional, orthodox Biblically informed beliefs can no longer expect to hold political office, and maybe can't even expect to have a voice in it. The reaction of the leaders of the other parties, assisted and upheld (I would even say provoked) by the media, eliminates us - based on our belief system - from leadership roles in mainstream society. As I read it, it was clear to me that those other leaders and many media pundits and even some on this board are saying that people with "those beliefs / views" don't deserve a voice or role in public discourse.

And once again we see the intolerance of the doctrine of 'tolerance'.

How have we gotten to this point?

And why?

Where is this trend going to lead?

I felt the same way and sent an email to that effect. Hope she got it. The milque toast reaction from the campaign was another matter.

Anyway, you ask very important questions.

Partly, I think we got to this point as a result of a lot of hippies becoming university professors instead of working in the real world. They became disciples of people like Chomsky and Alinsky and taught close-minded dogma. They have been doing a lot of social engineering. Part of that engineering has been changing the language we are allowed to use and selling their brand of censorship as "Political Correctness".

As an ex-hippie myself, I understand that Progressive intentions are good. But this is a more profound truth:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis

I have seldom read something more succinct, important or more true than that single quotation.

With that truth in mind, I think it is easier to understand why and how thousands - or millions - of otherwise good people have followed tyrants into hell over the course of human history.

The good questions you asked are real important. If we don't ask them, we will end up sitting in chains toasting our freedom....perhaps we are there already?

[Redfrog]

"I am secure enough in my faith and my sexuality that I do not fear either. "


I wonder if that is where all the reaction to the preacher comes from? Do you think that maybe the people who are upset with the preacher really believe that if WRP got elected and he was an MLA that the next day he would pass a law requiring all gays to come out of the closet? I could understand how some of those folks would be nervous.

How many same sex marriages are in jeopardy each year from an official refusing to perform the ceremony? Is it really a big problem? Big enough to disregard all the rest of a party's platform?

[260 Rem]

Red---if you can't figure out where all the reaction to the peacher comes from...makes me wonder where you've been for the past few weeks It' was mentioned in more than a few newspapers, radio, tv, and even in this forum. The turn from WR support came with Ms. Smiths reaction as a leader...(believe that or not). Election results seem pretty clear, the WR platform and candidates are not what the majority were looking for.

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by riden

I should add one thing though, and I don't mean to paint in broad strokes, and no I don't know what you believe in.

But if any traditional, orthodox Christian beliefs happen to involve subordination of women, then it is foolhardy to expect to hold public office in this century. And for good reason.

To be clear too, I have sat in many evangelical churches, including many weddings and have heard their definition of equality. I don't mean, equal but a helper only, whose role is to provide input and stand back and allow the man to decide. Whose role is to respect her man, and the man's role is to love the woman (notice I didn't say respect).

I mean truly equal, not some wacky definition of equal.

But again, if that is what you believe, your time has past, and we are better off. And it isn't a trend any more than ending slavery was a trend.

But again, I don't know what you believe, and I am not trying to flame you if this does not apply.

Don't worry, I don't feel flamed

You could figure out a lot of what I believe from the worldview thread. In case you (and others) don't know, I am a pastor who used to be a carpenter / home renovator / etc. I am a Bible believing Christian but am not in what can be labelled as part of the 'fundamentalist' camp . I do not hold to narrow, stereotyped 'pictures' and perceptions and doctrines of Christians or Christianity the secular realm likes to posit as the norm, but am in what could be identified / labelled as a 'confessional-evangelical' church denomination that is not considered to be 'mainline'.

So, in short, and without quoting Scripture,I believe, teach and promote true equality of genders (as per Jesus' teachings), I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth, but I believe God created it and sustains it, nor do I believe all homosexual people are destined for 'hell'. But I do believe all sinners who do not have a 'saved-by-grace' relationship with God will not go to 'heaven' or inherit the new heavens and earth Jesus says is coming.

Now back to politics , I worked on campaigns several years ago and had quite an interest in possibly running for office. As I investigated it I was advised that being a Christian presented some problems - I would have to set aside my faith system and keep it very private in order to gain a nomination to be a candidate. If questions requiring a faith-informed answer came up in the process I was advised to always give a 'politically-correct' response and / or lie or say nothing - which media and opponents would spin into a liability anyway. I've talked with Christian politicians who've told me it is becoming harder and harder to serve openly as a Christian in politics. And some years ago I was told a day was coming when Christians would be discouraged from serving politically - unofficially of course. I think, based on what transpired in this election process, that that day has likely come. It's going to be much, much harder, if not impossible, for any Christian to become a candidate in the future - at least if they are open about it!

I ask myself, based on my own political interest, if I as a Christian and a pastor would stand a chance in the process anymore. So let me ask: would you vote for me - knowing I'm a Christian and a pastor? Or would you discount me from eligibility on that prejudicial basis alone right from the get go?

Also, let me say clearly that I do not agree with Pastor Hunsberger's comments and would not have said them. Personally I think he was dumb to put them in a blog that could be accessed by anyone. But I do think they were taken and manipulated and used by various elements of the media and WR opponents inappropriately to malign and attack the credibility of the WR party and it's leader for political expediency, and to instill irrational fear into the electorate, demonstrating again that politics is a nasty business - especially in campaigns.
The same thing happened with the other feller and his comments (where a non-Caucasian person said a similar kind of thing and got a free pass - what's up with that?).

IMHO - when these kinds of things happen, when a demographic of the population is essentially 'removed' from the process, something good 'dies' in the political process and we all pay a price for it - because it narrows the scope of the discourse,and removes ideas from debate. And I can't help wondering what's next? If people like me don't have the freedom, even unofficially, to run for political office anymore, what other freedoms are we going to lose? The right to vote? (Don't laugh - I've actually had that exact thing said to me!!!)

So for me it was a sad day - not because the PC's won 4 more years, but because of what the process has lost in the process.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Don't worry, I don't feel flamed
snip.

Sorry, we are not arguing the same thing.

IN my definition of orthodox and traditional, you aren't one---you're almost a hippie.

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by riden

Sorry, we are not arguing the same thing.

IN my definition of orthodox and traditional, you aren't one---you're almost a hippie.

Some argue so was Jesus!!!

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

..... And I can't help wondering what's next? If people like me don't have the freedom, even unofficially, to run for political office anymore, what other freedoms are we going to lose? The right to vote? (Don't laugh - I've actually had that exact thing said to me!!!)

So for me it was a sad day - not because the PC's won 4 more years, but because of what the process has lost in the process.

You said a lot.

That was the same hammer that hit me. It wasn't losing the election, that was only a disappointment. It was watching Albertans cut and run from liberal fear-mongering.

OF COURSE the one guy stuck his foot in his mouth! Calling the remark stupid would have been justified, but calling the man a racist was beyond the pale. He had a non-white campaign manager! What the heck kind of a racist is that? It was obvious race-baiting and fear mongering. Taking it further that that - which was the PC message - was raw propaganda.

It was indeed a sad day. I still find it hard to believe how it went down.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

I wonder if that is where all the reaction to the preacher comes from? Do you think that maybe the people who are upset with the preacher really believe that if WRP got elected and he was an MLA that the next day he would pass a law requiring all gays to come out of the closet? I could understand how some of those folks would be nervous.

I do not think most of the reaction came from the gays.
1. An intelligent person should know that one evangelical x preacher mla can not pass any law on his own. It would take a whole party with a majorithy to do that.
2. An intelligent person should know that even an elected majority could not pass a law that would force anyone to come out.
3. An intelligent person should know that the issue is over and done with.

I think this is a case of the media being played by political experts and telling (yes telling) the people that they should be outraged. I think that there is a bit of Peeed off nature to many of us towards some evangelical Christians. I know I do not like to be told that I may go to hell even though they may be concerned about me. But I also believe that what some one else believes can not hurt me. I also believe that there are many very good people who would make good candidates in spite of what religion(s) they buy into. I think that there are many that can be whipped into a frenzy at just about anything that can be hinted at that might have a religious agenda. I think that the players know that evangelical are an easy target because they put up with it and they are the only ones that can be attacked and get away with it. No one would attempt to suggest a Sikh, or a Muslim or a First Nation Candidate had a religious agenda. Everyone would scream bigot, racist and all that stuff. The xperts played the media and the media played those who are intolerant of a certain religious faith. It worked. Many were played like a cheap fiddle. Easy target! It worked because Christians were the target and we all want to be outspoken about our new found open mindedness towards gays. This tactic probably would have exploded if a Muslim candidate was questioned about Sheria law.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

You said a lot.

That was the same hammer that hit me. It wasn't losing the election, that was only a disappointment. It was watching Albertans cut and run from liberal fear-mongering.

OF COURSE the one guy stuck his foot in his mouth! Calling the remark stupid would have been justified, but calling the man a racist was beyond the pale. He had a non-white campaign manager! What the heck kind of a racist is that? It was obvious race-baiting and fear mongering. Taking it further that that - which was the PC message - was raw propaganda.

It was indeed a sad day. I still find it hard to believe how it went down.

The most fear mongering pre/post election seems to be coming from you, starting to get tough to take. Not sure about others, but this forum is starting to lose it's appeal with all your gum flapping lately. Don't like what happened in Alberta, can I suggest the link to you below (maybe you're a transplant anyways), perhaps you would be less bitter over there. Heck, I hear they even have an outdoors forum over there, I bet they would like to hear some of your endless rants.
http://www.saskatchewanrealestate.com/

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Many were played like a cheap fiddle. Easy target! It worked because Christians were the target and we all want to be outspoken about our new found open mindedness towards gays. This tactic probably would have exploded if a Muslim candidate was questioned about Sheria law.

Best post in the thread.


The threat of a jihad seems to be far more effective at protecting religious rights then turning the other cheek is.

[Beerfish]

The Wildrose probably learned a lot from this election. The number one thing they have to do next time around is to screen their candidates very closely and imrpove the overall quality of candidates in all ridings. I am by no means a supporter of the party or a lot of their policies but the above would be a big step for them. It is not easy to gain governement in such a relatively short period of time. Having four years or so being the opposition and having elected reps in the legislature will have them much better prepared next time around.

[KegRiver]

The Wild Rose may have learned a lot but clearly the PCs did not.

They think they won because people prefer their policies.
I believe that most of the people who voted PC this election, did so because they didn't know anything about their Wild Rose candidate.

I can find no one in this district who knows anything about the Wild Rose candidate for this riding. No one I talk to heard of him attending any meetings, knocking on any doors, or in any way, attempting to connect with the people here.

I looked for information about him, all I found was an email address. No office, no meetings schedule, nothing.

Our PC candidate was out knocking on doors and attending meetings.
The people I have talked to who voted PC wanted to get rid of Redford, but they like their local PC MP. They knew nothing about the Wild Rose candidate, so they voted for what they knew.