WR Leadership Follow Through

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by Ali

Gravity is still a theory.

The theory is what causes it. We all agree it exists, but nobody knows for sure what causes it. Some people are pretty sure they know, but not 100% sure.

Not unlike climate change. It is pretty obvious it is happening, but some insist humans are causing it to accelerate, others think it is a natural cycle of our planet. Those on the human caused side are pushing for heavy restrictive regulations to industry. Ms. Smith is on the other side of the debate, as am I

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by riden

Returning Tory voters gave Redford her victory: Lougheed

Former premier says longtime PCs decided to get out and vote.

Lougheed had a horse in the race. Redford also denied that "strategic voting" gave her the win as well. You wouldn't expect either person to say anything differently would you? For people that want to know I think that it'd be better to read the reports of unbiased political scientists to get a more accurate grasp of what did and didn't happen this election.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Yéil

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.

Very weak beings I was not brought up in the US, UK, OR NEW ZEALAND....

[riden]

I am not saying this is the gospel according to Lougheed, but I do think it is an interesting perspective, and Lougheed's opinion does hold some credence.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Lougheed had a horse in the race.

Yes, he did.

Among other things, that Red Tory gave us the N.E.P. He sold us down the river "for the greater good."

His horse promised the "National Energy Strategy." Nobody know what that is. Well, maybe Lougheed knows.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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?

The WR lost and I am over that! Your statement about the people not liking the WR platform is OK then you go on to contradict yourself. I think that a party that is willing to changes for the wishes of the people is good. Don';t you? We do want them to represent us! Don't we? Do you think it silly for a party to mold its platform to the wishes of the people? Is that not what we elect a government to do. Some of your post sounds like you do not mind a government that wants to do what they want and not what the people want? Actually some of you post seems like you just do not know that you are talking about and you may have a bit of silly in your putty. Do you think that the conservatives are molding to the wishes of the people? What is your problem with the wishes of the people?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by 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....

Are you on drugs?

They were talking about doctors who don't want to kill unborn babies and Ministers who don't want to marry two men or two women. Those people should not be forced to do acts which they regard as absolutely wrong.

How does that translate in your mind into law-making, exactly?

Should we all become the Borg? If so, how can that be called "freedom"?

[horsetrader]

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.

What ISSUE are you talking about i was talking about

My statment was...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 his political career is not a factor any more.

There was no issue It was my opinion and i'm sure that is not in THE WR platform

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by 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.

You keep thinking that is it makes you feel better............

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nope wrong again ...my Grandfather voted Liberal......

Originally Posted by covey ridge

The WR lost and I am over that! Your statement about the people not liking the WR platform is OK then you go on to contradict yourself. I think that a party that is willing to changes for the wishes of the people is good. Don';t you? We do want them to represent us! Don't we? Do you think it silly for a party to mold its platform to the wishes of the people? Is that not what we elect a government to do. Some of your post sounds like you do not mind a government that wants to do what they want and not what the people want? Actually some of you post seems like you just do not know that you are talking about and you may have a bit of silly in your putty. Do you think that the conservatives are molding to the wishes of the people? What is your problem with the wishes of the people?

No contradiction in my statements...sorry

How do you gauge the wishes of the people on every issue? Will people that support your party agree on every issue? You can't and of course not. That's why we have several parties with different ideologies. We vote for parties that we share similar ideologies with, not parties that will do everything I ask. We vote for parties that will lead the province in a general direction that we agree with but at the end of the day, they aren't going to do everything that you or all agree with. That's the basis of a party system. I don't want a party in power that will bend at every pressure from a group of people and I don't want a party that will sell us an ideology based on what they think we want to hear. I vote for a party that I think will do the best job but I'm never so naive as to believe everything they do will make me happy but hopefully at the end of they day they stick to the ideology they put forth in the campaign.

Do I think it's silly for a party to mold to the wishes of the people? If all they are worried about is getting elected then no but that's not a party I could support. I support a party that has a vision that I agree with and then the reigns are pretty much in their hands for four years. If after four years they head a direction I don't like, I guess I need to find a new party. Truthfully we only live in a democracy every fourth year. For the remainder of the time, the government leads and we follow. We want to make sure we support a party that will lead in the direction we want for the years they are in power. If a party is willing to say anything to get into power.....do you really want to support them or believe that they will follow through with their promises? I know I don't.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Are you on drugs?

They were talking about doctors who don't want to kill unborn babies and Ministers who don't want to marry two men or two women. Those people should not be forced to do acts which they regard as absolutely wrong.

How does that translate in your mind into law-making, exactly?

Should we all become the Borg? If so, how can that be called "freedom"?

JP's not ministers, ministers aren't public servants.

Did I not read on the WRP website, the example of a dr refusing to prescribe birth control to a woman? That really crosses the line.

It's part of your job, you don't like it, work in a different field.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Yes, he did.

Among other things, that Red Tory gave us the N.E.P. He sold us down the river "for the greater good."

His horse promised the "National Energy Strategy." Nobody know what that is. Well, maybe Lougheed knows.

Ya but, who didn't have a horse in the race on this thread. He is as objective as any posters on this thread.

You sure don't come across as Mr Objectivity Rocky.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Ministers who don't want to marry two men or two women. Those people should not be forced to do acts which they regard as absolutely wrong.

Slight correction there Rock.. the conscience rights proposals re marriage impacted government appointed Justices of the Peace, not religious Ministers. Religious authorities and groups are already exempt.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Truthfully we only live in a democracy every fourth year. For the remainder of the time, the government leads and we follow. We want to make sure we support a party that will lead in the direction we want for the years they are in power.

I agree, this is how it's been during my lifetime anyway. One of the big reasons that I voted for the WRP was the ability of my MLA having a free vote and voting for/against legislation the way that his constituents want him to. To me, that method is a much more democratic version of government than what we have all become accustom to. Having one person making policy/decisions and a caucus made to toe the party line is autocracy, not democracy, however if the leader had been anyone other than Redford I would be allot more comfortable with it.

It makes me wonder if the .05% driving offence legislation, for example, would have ever passed had such a system been in place.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Slight correction there Rock.. the conscience rights proposals re marriage impacted government appointed Justices of the Peace, not religious Ministers. Religious authorities and groups are already exempt.

If you could show me how those conscience rights would have done more than caused a minor inconvenience to anyone else, you might have a point. Please skip the "What if's" and stay in the real world, OK?

Surely there should be room in the Borg Hive for some JP's who are traditional Christians? Surely couples who are themselves Christian might appreciate being able to select such a JP just as homosexuals might appreciate being able to select someone who shares their dogma?

Do you seriously believe traditional Christian beliefs disqualified them from doing any service for anyone - ever?

The Visigoths were not at the gate. You were played.

As usual, the rigidity and refusal to bend or accommodate is on the Left. They call it being "Progressive".

[darius]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Are you on drugs?

They were talking about doctors who don't want to kill unborn babies and Ministers who don't want to marry two men or two women. Those people should not be forced to do acts which they regard as absolutely wrong.

How does that translate in your mind into law-making, exactly?

Should we all become the Borg? If so, how can that be called "freedom"?

seems you view the world through 3/4" conduit tubing . . .

[riden]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If you could show me how those conscience rights would have done more than caused a minor inconvenience to anyone else, you might have a point. Please skip the "What if's" and stay in the real world, OK?

Like I said earlier, I live in a small town in the peace coutry. We have one permanent doctor, one jp. You should not HAVE to travel for a simple thing like birth control.

Not everyone lives in Ed or Calgary.

Now for the what if part, my dr is fresh off the boat from Libya and his wife wears full muslim garb. I bet he has a few unique ideas on morals. Does he not get conscience rights too?

FYI: I really like this dr and this is not racist at all.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If you could show me how those conscience rights would have done more than caused a minor inconvenience to anyone else, you might have a point. Please skip the "What if's" and stay in the real world, OK?

Because public servants are paid to provide services to all Albertans. They don't get to choose who they serve or don't serve. Don't want to have contact with certain people, get a different job where you don't have to.

What is the difference between a justice of the peace that refuses to marry someone because they are gay and a teacher who refuses to teach someone because they are gay. Minor inconvenience, just move the kid to another teacher. right? Same for nurses. Just bring in someone from another ward or shift to treat the gay person.

I'm amazed you are now willing to give government workers such say in what they will or won't do on your tax dollar Rocky. If the PC's had proposed this you would have condemned them in a second.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by riden

Like I said earlier, I live in a small town in the peace coutry. We have one permanent doctor, one jp. You should not HAVE to travel for a simple thing like birth control.

Agreed. I see you hypothetical point, but not the reality of it.

Now for the what if part, my dr is fresh off the boat from Libya and his wife wears full muslim garb. I bet he has a few unique ideas on morals. Does he not get conscience rights too?

Racist!

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Very weak beings I was not brought up in the US, UK, OR NEW ZEALAND....

Funny, either was I but the Presbyterian Church in Canada went through the same issues... and not so long ago.

The Canadian Census reports that the Presbyterian Church in Canada has a membership of 636,000 members which puts them at a tie with the Lutherans, exceeded in membership only by the Roman Catholic, United, Anglican and Baptist Churches.

In recent years, the Church's General Assembly has passed statements that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians because sexual intercourse should only take place between married persons, who of course must be heterosexuals. The most recent affirmation of this stance was taken in 1994 when the church adopted its report on human sexuality. But the church does not have a specific policy which forbids lesbian or gay clergy.

What's your next comeback, that Alberta churches are different?

On the dealing with Rev MacDonald in Montreal...
upon his ordination and being one of the first gay clergy to be ordained while in a committed relationship with his long term partner...

13 members of the Presbytery appealed the ruling to the Church's General Assembly. There was concern that conflict over homosexual ordination could seriously split the church, as has happened to the United Church of Canada in recent years. The Assembly created a special 9 person committee to investigate. The committee report recommended that the decision to call Mr. Macdonald be overruled, and that his ordination should proceed only if he terminates his committed relationship and remains celibate. A sizable minority (4/9) of the committee members disagreed with some of the report's conclusions because: The congregation at St. Andrews had overwhelmingly decided to accept Mr. Macdonald as their minister, knowing that he is gay.
the church has no specific policy against gay clergy.


The committee's report was presented to the General Assembly in Charlottetown, PEI on 1996-JUN-10. They accepted the nullification recommendation of the committee. They also voted 10 to 1 to have the Presbytery of Montreal re-examine his Certification for the Ministry. This was the document that had permitted Mr. Macdonald to work as an interim minister.

The Presbyterian Church of Canada gave the congregants of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church several directives to remove their minister; the congregation has been threatened with expulsion by the denomination. They had two choices: obey the church's directives or withdraw from the denomination. They withdrew; it is no longer a Presbyterian church. A service was held to bless the ministry of Darryl Macdonald. He continues to serve the congregation.

Yup, real tolerant....

[nof60]

[QUOTE=Rocky7;1412358]Agreed. I see you hypothetical point, but not the reality of it.

How is his point hypothetical?

[bessiedog]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Are you on drugs?

They were talking about doctors who don't want to kill unborn babies and Ministers who don't want to marry two men or two women. Those people should not be forced to do acts which they regard as absolutely wrong.

How does that translate in your mind into law-making, exactly?

Should we all become the Borg? If so, how can that be called "freedom"?

Thin edge of the wedge towards encouraging a slippery slope you moron. Its not that terribly hard a connection to make.

Civil servants have a hand in policy. Now your gonna classify which civil servants 'Can' and 'can't follow their concience???


and I'm on drugs.

Good thing this is an outdoorsmen site, cause your gonna need advice on how to survive as you wander out there by yourself in the political wilderness.


I'm starting to think I gave you way more credit than your due.

on another note:

A huge key to victory/survival for Smith is ; She focusses on fiscal conservatism AND Europe drags the energy industry down with it.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Yéil

Funny, either was I but the Presbyterian Church in Canada went through the same issues... and not so long ago.

The Canadian Census reports that the Presbyterian Church in Canada has a membership of 636,000 members which puts them at a tie with the Lutherans, exceeded in membership only by the Roman Catholic, United, Anglican and Baptist Churches.

In recent years, the Church's General Assembly has passed statements that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians because sexual intercourse should only take place between married persons, who of course must be heterosexuals. The most recent affirmation of this stance was taken in 1994 when the church adopted its report on human sexuality. But the church does not have a specific policy which forbids lesbian or gay clergy.

What's your next comeback, that Alberta churches are different?

On the dealing with Rev MacDonald in Montreal...
upon his ordination and being one of the first gay clergy to be ordained while in a committed relationship with his long term partner...

13 members of the Presbytery appealed the ruling to the Church's General Assembly. There was concern that conflict over homosexual ordination could seriously split the church, as has happened to the United Church of Canada in recent years. The Assembly created a special 9 person committee to investigate. The committee report recommended that the decision to call Mr. Macdonald be overruled, and that his ordination should proceed only if he terminates his committed relationship and remains celibate. A sizable minority (4/9) of the committee members disagreed with some of the report's conclusions because: The congregation at St. Andrews had overwhelmingly decided to accept Mr. Macdonald as their minister, knowing that he is gay.
the church has no specific policy against gay clergy.


The committee's report was presented to the General Assembly in Charlottetown, PEI on 1996-JUN-10. They accepted the nullification recommendation of the committee. They also voted 10 to 1 to have the Presbytery of Montreal re-examine his Certification for the Ministry. This was the document that had permitted Mr. Macdonald to work as an interim minister.

The Presbyterian Church of Canada gave the congregants of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church several directives to remove their minister; the congregation has been threatened with expulsion by the denomination. They had two choices: obey the church's directives or withdraw from the denomination. They withdrew; it is no longer a Presbyterian church. A service was held to bless the ministry of Darryl Macdonald. He continues to serve the congregation.

Yup, real tolerant....

Don't know what presb. church you went to but we were taught not to degrade a man because of race, creed, live style or religion

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Nope wrong again ...my Grandfather voted Liberal......

Not surprised!

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Don't know what presb. church you went to but we were taught not to degrade a man because of race, creed, live style or religion

The acceptance of the homosexual life style is very recent and I doubt it was only taught in any but the most liberal of church congregations and then only in the last 20 years.

HT you must be very young if that is what you were taught and not remember other church teachings on the subject.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Not surprised!

Thank you was the perfect party for Ontario.........LOL

[260 Rem]

Just an observation guys, but I think the kind of exchange here is the stuff that will hand WR another loss down the road. (Don't bother spinning that they really won) Not even our fiercely conservative Republican neighbors to the south support the Tea Party ideas. Santorum is out ...Gingrich is out...and good old middle ground Mitt will be the guy who loses to Obama. You may recall me saying that Santorum had no chance? You should consider taking my advice, as I raised the leadership deficiency when the first bozo eruption was only hours old...and I was right, it had an impact on WR support. My advice to you now...go to a WR meeting and start making some internal changes if you want WR to govern. If you want them to continue to be a minority opposition, continue to espouse the ultra right wing views for all to see. You have a right to your opinion and to express it...you also have the right to lose because of your opinion.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

The acceptance of the homosexual life style is very recent and I doubt it was only taught in any but the most liberal of church congregations and then only in the last 20 years.

HT you must be very young if that is what you were taught and not remember other church teachings on the subject.

I'm glad you think you know more about me and my churches teachings then I do that means I don't have to be bothered with your nonsense anymore.. because you know it all.........Right?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Yéil

They had two choices: obey the church's directives or withdraw from the denomination. They withdrew; it is no longer a Presbyterian church. A service was held to bless the ministry of Darryl Macdonald. He continues to serve the congregation.

Yup, real tolerant....

Ultimately, that's how people of principle will vote - with their feet.

When Rome was stormed by the barbarian hordes, it was not because the hordes were stronger; it was because years of higher and higher taxes to pay for the Mob (Roman "social programs") and years of a slow spiral into mediocrity had driven out all the men of conviction and principle who have defended her. In the end, nobody was left that was worth anything and they were easily overrun. There's a lesson in that.

I know one specialist and one G.P. who have told me privately, in no uncertain terms, that they will leave this Province if they are forced to perform unnecessary abortions. They tell me there are many others. Are they lying?

Progressives have no idea how many doctors refuse to do abortion-on-demand right now. Want to find out?