WR Leadership Follow Through

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

So are you saying you would rather have a candidate who kept his true beliefs from the public?

Did I say that? What did I say? LOL Reread my 5 sentence statement Red. I meant what I said there and only what I said. IF a candidate says he believes something, I will take it at face value.

[Redfrog]

So is a five sentence statement the same as a pinko manifesto? I'm just asking.

You think you are being clear, but it sounds like you are ok with a candidate who leaves out his beliefs so he doesn't upset the status of the campaign.

I'd rather know what he believes and then be able to make up my mind whether or not I thought his beliefs would impact legislation negatively.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

I'd rather know what he believes and then be able to make up my mind whether or not I thought his beliefs would impact legislation negatively.

arrrghhh You are just yanking my chain now. Better keep that helmet on! LOL I agreed with almost exactly the same statement you made earlier where you complimented the two bozos for making their statements in the first place. I agreed with you. I want people to say where they stand and I will make my decisions as a voter accordingly.

[covey ridge]

BTW talking about belief, the Premier had no problem not keeping a belief to herself when she said that she may be in favor of an Alberta registry similar to what Quebec wants. I guess most Albertans either share her view or really do not care either way about the issue? I am more concerned with the premier's belief system than a few evangelical christians.

[riden]

Where are you getting that from?

[Smokey]

The comments by the Pastor and the other were a small part of why the WRP lost. It only validated what people thought, which is the perception that the Wildrose is not a moderate party. Harper had to steer his ship to the center to get enough support. He alienated many of his grassroot member in doing so, but it was the only way he would gain power. If Smith and the WR want to be the government, they may fundementally have to shift.

[Josh J]

Originally Posted by Smokey

The comments by the Pastor and the other were a small part of why the WRP lost. It only validated what people thought, which is the perception that the Wildrose is not a moderate party. Harper had to steer his ship to the center to get enough support. He alienated many of his grassroot member in doing so, but it was the only way he would gain power. If Smith and the WR want to be the government, they may fundementally have to shift.

Which would defeat the purpose of having yet another party, in my mind. The whole point of WR is that they are here to bring about change. That's what people are scared of, and that is really too bad that they are scared.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

arrrghhh You are just yanking my chain now. Better keep that helmet on! LOL I agreed with almost exactly the same statement you made earlier where you complimented the two bozos for making their statements in the first place. I agreed with you. I want people to say where they stand and I will make my decisions as a voter accordingly.

Ok .why didn't you say that in the first place instead of all this politically correct bafflegab?

[Arn?Narn.]

Danni cut the head off the Wild Rose Party with her comments today...lololololol

The wildrose party is just a bunch of disconnected parts now, with no focus or commitment to anything....

tooo funny....

Bwaaaahahahahaaaaa!

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Smokey

The comments by the Pastor and the other were a small part of why the WRP lost. It only validated what people thought, which is the perception that the Wildrose is not a moderate party. Harper had to steer his ship to the center to get enough support. He alienated many of his grassroot member in doing so, but it was the only way he would gain power. If Smith and the WR want to be the government, they may fundementally have to shift.

Exactly! If you are the only party that is right of centre you can move left as close to centre as you want and still be the party farthest to the right. The PC moved right over into the left in order to get the Liberal vote and it worked for them. Having the WRP move closer to centre (But still on the right of it!!!!) would be beneficial for the party IMO.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

Danni cut the head off the Wild Rose Party with her comments today...lololololol

The wildrose party is just a bunch of disconnected parts now, with no focus or commitment to anything....

tooo funny....

Bwaaaahahahahaaaaa!

What comments? And why?

[riden]

Originally Posted by Josh J

Which would defeat the purpose of having yet another party, in my mind. The whole point of WR is that they are here to bring about change. That's what people are scared of, and that is really too bad that they are scared.

But that is the issue. If WRP wants to be the party of change, and clearly that was their platform. Then they better distance themselves from social issues. Especially controversial issues, if they want trust.

I know WRP says they will not legislate controversial moral issues, however during this election I have met several evangelical types who firmly believe WRP is the answer to the scourge of gay rights and abortion.

If you are going to attract those types to your party, you better be much clearer where the line stands.

[Arn?Narn.]

^^^^ good thoughts and post

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Exactly! If you are the only party that is right of centre you can move left as close to centre as you want and still be the party farthest to the right. The PC moved right over into the left in order to get the Liberal vote and it worked for them. Having the WRP move closer to centre (But still on the right of it!!!!) would be beneficial for the party IMO.

Bingo.! Well said. Redford moved the PC's left of center, in doing so she left open the whole right wing. No point in Danni trying to be any further to the right than Redford. All she needs to do is occupy the position previously held by the PC's.

Any PC accusing Danni of flip flopping...hilarious. She has a lot of flip flopping to do to catch up with redford.

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Bingo.! Well said. Redford moved the PC's left of center, in doing so she left open the whole right wing. No point in Danni trying to be any further to the right than Redford. All she needs to do is occupy the position previously held by the PC's.

Any PC accusing Danni of flip flopping...hilarious. She has a lot of flip flopping to do to catch up with redford.

Isn't that like saying "my favorite tells fewer lies"? Little shine comming off the diamond?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Bingo.! Well said. Redford moved the PC's left of center, in doing so she left open the whole right wing. No point in Danni trying to be any further to the right than Redford. All she needs to do is occupy the position previously held by the PC's.

Any PC accusing Danni of flip flopping...hilarious. She has a lot of flip flopping to do to catch up with redford.

Lets see how much flip flopping she does IF she ever get in power enough for it to make a difference. It is always easy to not do wrong when you've done NOTHING

[hal53]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

[/COLOR]

Lets see how much flip flopping she does IF she ever get in power enough for it to make a difference. It is always easy to not do wrong when you've done NOTHING

Rocky????...did u hack HT's account??.........there is getting close to as many posts here about how great the PC's are as the WR had beforehand...
Time will tell....

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Isn't that like saying "my favorite tells fewer lies"? Little shine comming off the diamond?

It's called being pragmatic. Harper did it with the Conservatives or we'd still be under the Liberals. Danni, needs to do the same (although maybe not to the same extent Harper had to) to capture a larger portion of the electorate. And the argument could also be made that she might be able to win the next election without changing her position, hoping that Redford and the PC's **** off the people enough to make them more angry than fearful...but that's more of a gamble.

I'd be happy/satisfied with anything Ralph Klein or right of that. If the PC's had stayed the course there likely would never have been a WR party. The PC's moved a little left with Stelmach, and now they've moved into liberal territory with Redford.

Alberta has the third largest deficit in Canada right now (880 million in current budget that's counting on continued high oil revenue)...accounting for population we are pretty close to budgetary twinship with Quebec (1.5billlion). Not sustainable. Especially if oil prices dip.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by riden

But that is the issue. If WRP wants to be the party of change, and clearly that was their platform. Then they better distance themselves from social issues. Especially controversial issues, if they want trust.

I know WRP says they will not legislate controversial moral issues, however during this election I have met several evangelical types who firmly believe WRP is the answer to the scourge of gay rights and abortion.

If you are going to attract those types to your party, you better be much clearer where the line stands.

These rights are intrenched in the canadian charter of rights and can not be changed at the provincal level.Anyone who trys to state diffrently should ask Ted Morten.When he was the alberta justice minister the PC's challenged the gay marrige lesiglation all the way to the supreme court of canada using our tax dollars and lost.That would lead me to belive that the PC's are a bunch of bigots.

[riden]

Originally Posted by stringer

These rights are intrenched in the canadian charter of rights and can not be changed at the provincal level.Anyone who trys to state diffrently should ask Ted Morten.When he was the alberta justice minister the PC's challenged the gay marrige lesiglation all the way to the supreme court of canada using our tax dollars and lost.That would lead me to belive that the PC's are a bunch of bigots.

You know, the charter isn't a whole lot of protection for the average person, a charter challenge is very expensive. The evangelicals on my local library board are censoring library books and refuse to borrow any books from other libraries or allow digital access in the publically funded library. I think they are infringing on my charter rights, especially my Twilight fan daughters. Wanna lend me the coin to challenge them?

How would conscience rights make out with our charter? Keep in mind too, lots of Albertans live in small towns like me. Lots of small towns only have one person providing a service. Could conscience rights not deny many rural Albertans charter rights?

More to my point though Stringer, why do so many evangelicals I talk to, believe the WRP is the party of social change? Clearly there are very mixed messages sent and WRP had to have known this? So why didn't they make it clearer?

[stringer]

Originally Posted by riden

You know, the charter isn't a whole lot of protection for the average person, a charter challenge is very expensive. The evangelicals on my local library board are censoring library books and refuse to borrow any books from other libraries or allow digital access in the publically funded library. I think they are infringing on my charter rights, especially my Twilight fan daughters. Wanna lend me the coin to challenge them?

How would conscience rights make out with our charter? Keep in mind too, lots of Albertans live in small towns like me. Lots of small towns only have one person providing a service. Could conscience rights not deny many rural Albertans charter rights?

More to my point though Stringer, why do so many evangelicals I talk to, believe the WRP is the party of social change? Clearly there are very mixed messages sent and WRP had to have known this? So why didn't they make it clearer?

Don;t need any coin just file a complaint with AHRC it's free thats why it's a joke anybody can file a clain with no financial consequences and possibly some compensation if they find your rights or FEELINGS have been violated.
Conscions rights are intrenched in the constitution,so is freedom of religion,and freedom of speech.

[riden]

Originally Posted by stringer

Don;t need any coin just file a complaint with AHRC it's free thats why it's a joke anybody can file a clain with no financial consequences and possibly some compensation if they find your rights or FEELINGS have been violated.
Conscions rights are intrenched in the constitution,so is freedom of religion,and freedom of speech.

WRP wanted to end Human Rights Tribunials.

How are conscience rights entrenched in the constitution?

[KegRiver]

It looks to me like most people missed the significance of what the electoral map is telling us.

A careful look will show that south of Edmonton almost all of the rural riding's went WR while north of Edmonton they went PC.

I know that around here, among people who follow politics, there was a lot of opposition toward the PC's getting back in.
I believe what really happened is that the WR failed to get their message out to the northern riding's. Especially in the more remote ones.

It is typical for politicians to ignore us in the north. Down south they knock on doors and hold town hall meetings, up here they show up in the larger towns for ONE meeting per election.
So we are left to learn what we can from the news and from what other non political people tells us. All parties do it.

This time, the WR being new, ignoring the north cost them the election.
Look at the numbers in the ridings. Over half of the northern ridings were close, even very close. At least 20 ridings I looked at were too close to call right to the last. That's a lot of seats that could have been won, with a bit more work.

Here, before the election, the talk in the coffee shops and work places was all about how we need change. But the people I talked to that weren't voting WR simply knew nothing about them. Those who did know something about them were 100% WR supporters.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by riden

WRP wanted to end Human Rights Tribunials.

How are conscience rights entrenched in the constitution?

I just expained why go back and read my post agian.

If you don't belive me look it up.

[riden]

Originally Posted by stringer

I just expained why go back and read my post agian.

If you don't belive me look it up.

I say again, Wild Rose wanted to end Human Rights Tribunals, so how would it be possible to use them to protect your charter rights if WRP won? Simple question?

If conscience rights are entrenched in the constitition, why does the WRP need to implement a policy on it?

[bessiedog]

Stringer... You need to actually read your Charter and know what it says before you spout off about it.

I know.. Why don't you try to understand sec 1???

It's kindof an important one. Sort of sets the tone for the rest of the document.

Geeze!

Oh ya. Your spelling is worse than mine. Stop that!!
That's my thing that I doo!

[Rocky7]

The WR does not need to change any policies - not one. Those policies came from constituency associations, people of Alberta. They were not handed down from on high. They were not politically correct in some regards but that odious form of censorship belongs with the Progressives. It has no place in the Wild Rose.

All the years I voted Reform federally I doubted a victory was possible. But I always felt good when I left the ballot box.

This election was not lost by failing to bow to the global warming faith or wanting to evaluate replacing the RCMP with a provincial police force or having an Alberta Pension Plan. The latter two have been in place in two large liberal provinces for years, for heaven's sake!

It was lost on a charge of racism and a charge of homophobia. The first was a case of foot-in-mouth by a candidate with a visible minority campaign manager! The second was a bible quotation in a blog the REDford crowd dug up a year before the guy got into politics.

Preston Manning was a born-again Christian when he ran for office. Still is. Does anybody seriously think he doesn't read the bible?

Those attacks came from narrow-minded, intolerant bigots. Those attacks came from a party that now believes Albertans should never be sullied by a candidate who mentions his personal religion in a personal comment made any time before an election campaign. Those attacks came from a party that believes Albertans will not tolerate a single stupid-sounding comment. That makes sense only to those who assume that they themselves never say anything stupid-sounding.

Dani's mistake was in not identifying that PC bigotry for what it was and attacking it. Her campaign handlers should have never advised her to get on a bicycle and pedal backwards. I wanted to hear a simple apology for a minor offence for the "Caucasian" remark and then hear her rip a large, long strip off the Politically Correct and their leader for those intolerant, over-the-top and offensive labels; particularly the bible quote.

If we do not tolerate bigotry in the WR - and we don't - then we cannot tolerate hypocritical bigots, either, and especially when they are our opponents. That is the mistake conservatives make far too often...when the "bigot" or "racist" accusation is tossed out, we get backing up and denying. It would be better if we recognized that such an accusation for such a minor offense is, itself, full-blown bigotry. It would be better if we recognized that the crows who want to ban personal religious belief - unless those beliefs are spoken only in private - are themselves intolerant, bigoted elitists and nothing less than potential tyrants. We are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Caber Tosser said that, too, and it is exactly right. The worst mistake conservatives ever make is in letting the Left get away with being narrow-minded and intolerant.

I never thought I'd see the day when liberal fear-mongering would win an election in Alberta.

That has been profoundly disappointing.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by riden

I say again, Wild Rose wanted to end Human Rights Tribunals, so how would it be possible to use them to protect your charter rights if WRP won? Simple question?

If conscience rights are entrenched in the constitition, why does the WRP need to implement a policy on it?

They were going to have it go through the courts and have a judge decide instead of a kangaroo court which AHRC is.If it would cost you some coin you might think twice about filing a complaint because someone hurt your feelings.A judge would then make his decision based on the constiution or charter of rights.As it is now its bureaucrats are making these decisions.

So you could not lose your job for refusing to do something that went again your conscious.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

The WR does not need to change any policies - not one. Those policies came from constituency associations, people of Alberta. They were not handed down from on high. They were not politically correct in some regards but that odious form of censorship belongs with the Progressives. It has no place in the Wild Rose.

All the years I voted Reform federally I doubted a victory was possible. But I always felt good when I left the ballot box.

This election was not lost by failing to bow to the global warming faith or wanting to evaluate replacing the RCMP with a provincial police force or having an Alberta Pension Plan. The latter two have been in place in two large liberal provinces for years, for heaven's sake!

It was lost on a charge of racism and a charge of homophobia. The first was a case of foot-in-mouth by a candidate with a visible minority campaign manager! The second was a bible quotation in a blog the REDford crowd dug up a year before the guy got into politics.

Preston Manning was a born-again Christian when he ran for office. Still is. Does anybody seriously think he doesn't read the bible?

Those attacks came from narrow-minded, intolerant bigots. Those attacks came from a party that now believes Albertans should never be sullied by a candidate who mentions his personal religion in a personal comment made any time before an election campaign. Those attacks came from a party that believes Albertans will not tolerate a single stupid-sounding comment. That makes sense only to those who assume that they themselves never say anything stupid-sounding.

Dani's mistake was in not identifying that PC bigotry for what it was and attacking it. Her campaign handlers should have never advised her to get on a bicycle and pedal backwards. I wanted to hear a simple apology for a minor offence for the "Caucasian" remark and then hear her rip a large, long strip off the Politically Correct and their leader for those intolerant, over-the-top and offensive labels; particularly the bible quote.

If we do not tolerate bigotry in the WR - and we don't - then we cannot tolerate hypocritical bigots, either, and especially when they are our opponents. That is the mistake conservatives make far too often...when the "bigot" or "racist" accusation is tossed out, we get backing up and denying. It would be better if we recognized that such an accusation for such a minor offense is, itself, full-blown bigotry. It would be better if we recognized that the crows who want to ban personal religious belief - unless those beliefs are spoken only in private - are themselves intolerant, bigoted elitists and nothing less than potential tyrants. We are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Caber Tosser said that, too, and it is exactly right. The worst mistake conservatives ever make is in letting the Left get away with being narrow-minded and intolerant.

I never thought I'd see the day when liberal fear-mongering would win an election in Alberta.

That has been profoundly disappointing.

Well said Rocky

[Redfrog]

Welcome back and booyah!!!