WR Leadership Follow Through

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Naw, just different tactics. For Rocky I use a club. For you, a scalpel.

It feels like a pot of boiling water.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Allan Hunsperger and his wife warned against accepting gays and lesbians for who they are.

They wrote if they don't change they will "suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire" — a reference to hell.


I think this is more then just religious beliefs. I know a few Christians and they would not condone this behavior.

If I ever meet Mr. Hunsperger, I will be sure to remind him that he should check with you before he acquires any religious beliefs with which you might disagree....and definitely check with you before he talks about them other than in the privacy of his own house.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

And you know this HOW....?

Good guess I guess

[darius]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Ever hear a muslim candidate called a bigot?


Horse do you think this guy is the only Christian or any other religion who believes homosexuality is a sin?

I 've never heard of a muslim candidate call for jihad , or post scripture from the koran on their blog saying gays will burn in hell .

again , believe what you want , but publicly state your beliefs , especially as an electoral candidate and you will be judged .

seems common sense to me . . .

ps -

this is old hat for the " conservative " parties in canada . reform , pc's , thay have all been through this and learned from it .

I guess dani has to learn from her own mistakes .. .

People can make all the excuses they want for why the WR lost and they can place the blame everywhere but where it blongs but at the end of the day, the people didn't like the WR platform. It definitely reflected the thoughts and values of a percentage of Albertans but obviously not the majority. They didn't lose because of block voting or fear mongering or PC attacks...they lost because the majority of people in Alberta didn't like what they had to say. That's the way a democracy works. The fact the Smith is already back peddling and willing to change the party for the wishes of the people pretty well confirms that. I'm not sure I'm all that comfortable with that....are they a party that stands firm on their beliefs or are they a party made of silly putty that molds to the wishes of the people? Don't we already have the Conservatives for that?

Add another 1/2 million immigrants to this province before the next provincial election and the drunken spending spree that Redford is about to go on and the Wild Rose will have to come out left of the NDP to have a chance. Sadly they had their one chance a blew it I fear...their day has come and gone. It's not surprising that this board has motre than it's share of hard line right wingers but that is not a true reflection of society anymore.....they want progressive conservatism.

[darius]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If I ever meet Mr. Hunsperger, I will be sure to remind him that he should check with you before he acquires any religious beliefs with which you might disagree....and definitely check with you before he talks about them other than in the privacy of his own house.

wow , twist the story or what . .!

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Ever hear a muslim candidate called a bigot?


Horse do you think this guy is the only Christian or any other religion who believes homosexuality is a sin?

No i'm not foolish enough to believe that this guy is the ONLY christian to think homosexuality is a sin, But I don't think ALL Christians think it is either.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It's not surprising that this board has motre than it's share of hard line right wingers but that is not a true reflection of society anymore....

Maybe, maybe not.

I think you are describing the Overton Window, though, and that part is correct. Traditional conservative values are indeed labelled by Progressives as "hard right wing" and supported by many in the MSM, and others.

The kicker is that it's not really a "Left-Right" issue at all. It's a contest between freedom/personal responsibility and Statists. Statists have been winning. But until the Fat Lady sings, we really don't know how this contest is going to pan out.

[greylynx]

Time to grab a good seat in the bleachers and watch the rodeo,or more correctly, " the goatshow" thats coming to town for the next four years.

[bessiedog]

yup... stringer...

small sentences..... serving up weak sauce.


You got nothing.

Concience rights is the window to let in church and state, or voting rights on battle orders, or refusal to do life saving operations because I believe in..... take yer pick.




Still waiting rock.... c'mon... be a sport.

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Allan Hunsperger and his wife warned against accepting gays and lesbians for who they are.

They wrote if they don't change they will "suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire" — a reference to hell.


I think this is more then just religious beliefs. I know a few Christians and they would not condone this behavior.


Christian 1
adjective
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings : the Christian Church.
• informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness.

Sadly it's not just some Christians that would agree with the pastor...

Orthodox Judism finds homesexuality a sin;

Most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual sex is sinful. These denominations include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Methodist Church and some other mainline denominations, such as the Reformed Church in America and the American Baptist Church, as well as Conservative Evangelical organizations and churches, such as the Evangelical Alliance and fundamentalist groups and churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention. Pentecostal churches such as the Assemblies of God as well as Restorationist churches, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, also take the position that homosexual sexual activity is sinful.

All major Islamic sects disapprove of homosexuality. Islam views same-sex desires as a natural temptation; but, sexual relations are seen as a transgression of the natural role and aim of sexual activity. Islamic teachings (in the hadith tradition) presume same-sex attraction, extol abstention and (in the Qur'an) condemn consummation.

Among the religions that originated in India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, teachings regarding homosexuality are less clear than among the Abrahamic traditions, and religious authorities voice diverse opinions. In 2005, an authority figure of Sikhism condemned same-sex marriage and the practice of homosexuality. However many people in Sikhism aren't against gay marriage.

Among the Taoic religions of East Asia, such as Taoism, passionate homosexual expression is usually discouraged because it is believed to not lead to human fulfillment.

So Horsetrade/Oko, would you have refused to vote for any candidate that was of any of the above religious persuasion as well?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by stringer

Good guess I guess

So again a theory with no proof or no facts .... Getting use to that by now....

I was brought up in a Presbyterian Church where we were taught tolerance that is why I can listen to your ramblings.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Yéil

Sadly it's not just some Christians that would agree with the pastor...

Orthodox Judism finds homesexuality a sin;

Most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual sex is sinful. These denominations include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Methodist Church and some other mainline denominations, such as the Reformed Church in America and the American Baptist Church, as well as Conservative Evangelical organizations and churches, such as the Evangelical Alliance and fundamentalist groups and churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention. Pentecostal churches such as the Assemblies of God as well as Restorationist churches, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, also take the position that homosexual sexual activity is sinful.

All major Islamic sects disapprove of homosexuality. Islam views same-sex desires as a natural temptation; but, sexual relations are seen as a transgression of the natural role and aim of sexual activity. Islamic teachings (in the hadith tradition) presume same-sex attraction, extol abstention and (in the Qur'an) condemn consummation.

Among the religions that originated in India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, teachings regarding homosexuality are less clear than among the Abrahamic traditions, and religious authorities voice diverse opinions. In 2005, an authority figure of Sikhism condemned same-sex marriage and the practice of homosexuality. However many people in Sikhism aren't against gay marriage.

Among the Taoic religions of East Asia, such as Taoism, passionate homosexual expression is usually discouraged because it is believed to not lead to human fulfillment.

So Horsetrade/Oko, would you have refused to vote for any candidate that was of any of the above religious persuasion as well?

As long as his religious beliefs were not reflected in the way he conducted any political agendas and he was the right man for the job yes I could vote for him.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If I ever meet Mr. Hunsperger, I will be sure to remind him that he should check with you before he acquires any religious beliefs with which you might disagree....and definitely check with you before he talks about them other than in the privacy of his own house.

Well we don't have to worry his views only bothered me if they would influence any political issues he was involved in. I would think him political career in not a factor any more.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by darius

wow , twist the story or what . .!

hahahaha It ok all wounded animals first reaction is to ATTACK

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

So again a theory with no proof or no facts .... Getting use to that by now....

I was brought up in a Presbyterian Church where we were taught tolerance that is why I can listen to your ramblings.

Best look at the history of your own church then. The issues of homosexuality are still very contentious in the USA, UK and New Zealand. It wasn't until 1995 that the General Assembly put gay relationships in the same category as people with disabilities, elderly. It wasn't until then that the church moved to consider all cohabiting relationships (read unmarried)that were loving and caring, not to be considered sinful.

It took until 2006 for the church to approve the ordination of gay clergy. The Book of Order once said: "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and / or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament (G-6.0106b)."

The church had to "correct" the Heidelburg Catechism in order to allow gays in the clergy. The HC is a founding document of faith for Presbyterians. The correction will remove the improper 1962 "translation" of the original document which illicitly added homosexuality to its list of sins. The 2010 General Assembly received and approved a report for the change and send to the presbyteries to receive a two-thirds approval for change in 2012.

On July 8, 2010, by a vote of 373 to 323 the presbytery voted to amend the document. Folks that didn't agree with the changes, splintered off to form a new church...the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Well we don't have to worry his views only bothered me if they would influence any political issues he was involved in.

There was nothing about this issue in the entire WR published platform which has been available for months and talked about for months.

Are you a mentalist, then?

Or do you just not trust that anyone with religious beliefs different than yours can tell the truth?

Or....is it something else? Something I've talked about earlier in this thread.

[stringer]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

yup... stringer...

small sentences..... serving up weak sauce.


You got nothing.

Concience rights is the window to let in church and state, or voting rights on battle orders, or refusal to do life saving operations because I believe in..... take yer pick.




Still waiting rock.... c'mon... be a sport.

Sorry but I only have one finger and it gets tired out .

[Getmygun]

All I know is freedom is taken not given and Canada from what I understand was given its freedom?

This is why our governor General can dissolve your elected government.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

This is why America was the biggest reference to freedom the world has ever known. They took their liberty and when Jefferson was done he went back farming because he had his freedom and that is what all of us needed.

So let’s not debate what should be given to us and what should not be given to us as you deserve nothing as you have no freedom.

What is the difference of the new slave compared to the old slave that would get whipped when he did not do as told. You get to pick your serfdom, as we are more productive when we get to choose our serfdom. They even figured out a way to make you pay for this privilege by taxing you to work.

To Funny

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Getmygun

To Funny

Who's Funny? Don't think he's a member.

[bessiedog]

So vote for WR cause they will allow people in government to have 'freedom of concience' and ACT IN GOV'T ACCORDING TO MY BELIEFS....


But don't worry about us and our radical beliefs that we espouse b/C we wont act on them once we get into government???!!!???


Gak!


O yea... the media conspired to kill us..

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

There was nothing about this issue in the entire WR published platform which has been available for months and talked about for months.

Are you a mentalist, then?

Or do you just not trust that anyone with religious beliefs different than yours can tell the truth?

Or....is it something else? Something I've talked about earlier in this thread.

Welcome back Rocky. I wanted to tell you I finally made up my mind and voted PC... Looks like a few others had second thoughts about WR as well.

[chasingtail]

WR didn't lose because of the gay comments most people could care less about gay issues for or against and are probably sick of hearing about it. Many other forums I watch the general conscientious was the WR is to new and inexperienced, they don't like REDford or the PC's, they wanted WR to win seats but not form government to give them time to get some experience. WR needs to stick to the fiscal issues. As long as REDford continues to spend like liberals and take more of our freedoms away this will only help the WR next time. They also need to get some better known candidates which I am sure they will have in 4 years. 3 months ago if we knew WR would end up with 17 seats we would be happy, what hurts is the polls looked as if they would win so we got our hopes up to high. Oh and the WR needs to lie a little more, honest politicians can't win, the general public is much to stupid.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by chasingtail

3 months ago if we knew WR would end up with 17 seats we would be happy, what hurts is the polls looked as if they would win so we got our hopes up to high.

If the PC Party had Special Ed as their leader, it would not have become so urgent.

There has been a coup in the PC Party and a lot of it's supporters don't get that - yet.

Oh and the WR needs to lie a little more, honest politicians can't win, the general public is much to stupid.

They can go that way if they want, but it will cost them my support.

I never expected Albertans to cut and run on liberal fear-mongering and race-baiting. That was a far bigger surprise to me than the election result.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

are they a party that stands firm on their beliefs or are they a party made of silly putty that molds to the wishes of the people? .

i thought representing the wishes of the people is what a government is SUPPOSED to do?

all parties pitch their message to get across what they represent, but always always always they should be listening to what the people want.

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

i thought representing the wishes of the people is what a government is SUPPOSED to do?

all parties pitch their message to get across what they represent, but always always always they should be listening to what the people want.

Nothing would ever get done that way. A party runs on its platform and hopefully follows through with that platform when elected. If all parties followed the will of the people, we'd only need one party. People vote for a direction the party will take them over the next four years. Apparently the Alberta electorate didn't like the WR direction.

[riden]

The argument that Albertans bailed on WRP at the last minute, doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Didn't the last poll that had teh WRP taking 62 seats, also have 20% undecided? 20 % undecided is huge.

Here is a different perspective:




Returning Tory voters gave Redford her victory: Lougheed




Former premier says longtime PCs decided to get out and vote



By Sheila Pratt, edmontonjournal.com April 25, 2012



Alison Redford’s election victory was driven by Progressive Conservative voters who came back to the party after years of not voting, says former premier Peter Lougheed, founder of the 41-year-old dynasty.

While some observers attributed Redford’s 61-seat win to strategic voting by Liberals, Lougheed said he sees it differently — longtime, stay-at-home PCs finally decided to get out and vote because they found Redford’s party better represented their views.
[B]“Many of our party supporters had been staying away from elections that occurred in the (Ralph) Klein years and (Ed) Stelmach as well,” said Lougheed.[/B]“I think they were taken by the new leader with a vision for the future and they wanted to vote for their party again — it was that combination,” said Lougheed, adding he was “thrilled” with the results.“This really renews the PC party in terms of its strength and it endorses Premier Redford’s plans for the future of the province.”

Redford’s decisive victory over the right-wing Wildrose (with 17 seats) also brings the PC party firmly to the centre — the same place on the political spectrum it occupied in 1971 when the Lougheed team defeated the Social Credit government, he added.

The voter turnout jumped to 57 per cent in Monday’s vote — a 16 percentage point increase over the 41-per-cent turnout in the 2008 election. More than 300,000 additional voters went to the polls for a total of 1.29 million (with all but a handful of polls counted). That compares with 906,0000 voters in 2008.

The 57-per-cent turnout is the highest level since 1993, when the Tories faced a strong challenge from Laurence Decore’s Liberals. In that election, the turnout was 60 per cent and the Liberals won 32 seats.

Lougheed also said he never bought into the notion the Wildrose was a serious threat to the Conservatives and always believed the election would produce a Tory victory.

“I always thought they were too narrow a group, more like old Social Credit groups and the Preston Manning group,” said Lougheed.

“They have a good communicator, a good leader, but I think their past caught up with them.”

Lougheed also noted when his new party was first elected in 1971, it did not carry any seats south of Calgary where Social Credit held on — much of the area where the Wildrose put in a strong showing Monday and won most of its seats.

Redford’s vision of a greater and constructive role for Alberta on the national stage — rather than building a firewall — and forging alliances with other provinces is exactly what is needed now, Lougheed added.

“We are leading the country with our economic strength and that gives us quite a bit of leverage,” said Lougheed.

“It sure helps her to have a strong election victory.”

The province needs co-operation, especially from British Columbia, to get the Northern Gateway pipeline approved to open up Asian markets for oilsands products, the former premier said.

Lougheed said it is unclear at this point whether Redford might pursue a strategy similar to the PCs in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In those years, the Alberta government gave low-interest loans to other provinces to ensure other parts of the country also benefited from Alberta’s oil wealth. It also built the grain terminal in Prince Rupert, B.C., to help get Western grain to export markets.

Before the election, Redford had encountered some resistance within her Conservative caucus for her message about bringing change to the province. That pre-election caucus did not support her leadership bid, but now about one-third of her MLAs are new.

Redford, with only seven months as leader under her belt, was also criticized for not consulting the caucus on important policy changes, such as her decision to lower to .05 the legal limit for drunk driving.

Lougheed said the election victory should consolidate her position and allow her to put her stamp on the party.

As well, Redford, who has just four years as a cabinet minister behind her, still has lots to learn about governing, he noted.

“We had four years in opposition and we learned a lot.”

Redford, at some point, will have to reach out to the alienated rural base in the south, but “she will have to consolidate her own support first,” Lougheed added.

The higher voter turnout benefited both Wildrose and the PCs. The Conservative vote went up to 567,053 votes from 501,000 votes in the 2008 election. The Wildrose polled a whopping 442,431 votes, (almost seven times its 2008 total) for 34 per cent of the popular vote.

The Liberals, who lost more than 100,000 voters, saw their total drop to 127,643, down from 251,158 in 2008.

Asked how the Harper federal government would react to the Redford victory and the Wildrose defeat, Lougheed said:”I think they’ll pay attention. They better pay attention.”

“It was a positive vote for the PCs and the new premier.”

Some Harper supporters were working for the Wildrose party.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...307/story.html

[Rocky7]

Where does Lougheed think that missing 15% of the vote - which has always gone to Liberals - went?

Poof?

Y'know what really cracks me up?

According to Redford, the PC Party is not your father's party.....it is, however your grandfather's party.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Nothing would ever get done that way. A party runs on its platform and hopefully follows through with that platform when elected. If all parties followed the will of the people, we'd only need one party. People vote for a direction the party will take them over the next four years. Apparently the Alberta electorate didn't like the WR direction.

Gotta agree with ISB on this one. If a party's platform needs tweaking then that's what needs to be done. You can't keep offering up the same ideas and expect a different result. If Albertans don't want citizen-initiated referenda, for example, then get rid it. I'm not saying that the WRP should make radical changes and move left of centre but I think that moving closer to centre would be beneficial to the party. They have the whole right side to themselves so why not use it to their advantage?

A party runs on its platform and definitely should follow through if elected. In the case of the WRP though, they didn't get elected on their platform so it's only prudent to put it under a microscope and try to figure out what can be improved in order to be successful the next time around.

Parties do follow the will of the people but not everyone agrees on all issues. You can't have a single party that wants and doesn't want more health care spending. It'd be nice to have a one party suits all but it would never happen.

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Gotta agree with ISB on this one. If a party's platform needs tweaking then that's what needs to be done. .

Tweaking yes......paradigm shift no........