Of, For, And By the People...?

[Nait Hadya]

homophobe


Noun,

Offensive Slur.

1. Non-medical, non-scientific pejorative term used to demean and ridicule anyone who disagrees with or disapproves of aberrant, deviant, or unnatural pseudo sexual behavior, conduct or practices.

gays promoting hatred...against anyone who disapproves of their deviance?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Not just lefties. The gay rights thing gets used by every political party in one way or another.

Its just so fun to argue about

I don't see it brought up except by lefties and cino's, CC. It wasn't on the WR platform, for example. Nope.

Fun? Sure, maybe like dragging your nails on a blackboard endlessly is fun. I know, you were making a joke but really - I've had a guts full of 2% of the population constantly sucking up everyone's attention. Who cares, already. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of the endless "phobes" that these progressive pinheads keep creating. Conservatives are not afraid of this or any other behaviours ore religions, hence there is no "phobia" and never was. We're just sick of it. NO fear. Just fed up.

Hullo.........Hullo?....Anybody home?

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Whatever happened to government Of, For, And By the People...? When did we as Canadians become sheep?


The population of Canada is over 30 million. Estimated 26 million of those are over the age of 18.
The number of politicians probably number in the Thousands.
There's about 70,000 police officers in Canada.

That said, the number of gun owners is estimated to be between 3 to 4 million people.


Yet we are losing rights every day it seems, and have already become a nanny country. WT? happened and why is the Canadian public allowing it to happen? What happened to standing up for ourselves?

We are getting bullied by police with no way to defend, we are ruled and regulated to death, we are recorded everywhere we go? Companies are sanctioned to watch our every move, can't even pick up the damn cell phone without someone tracking it any more.

We hear it every day, people **** and moan about this law and that, but do nothing about it. Politicians numbers can't even classify them as a minority but yet they rule every aspect of our lives? Politicians in Canada know that they can do as they please and we the sheep are just going to **** and moan about it.


So what about some ideas here? I'd be interested in hearing them...

Keep on voting Conservative if you dot want change

[Big Daddy Badger]

So...when did this become all about the WRP and Alberta?

I believe the issue being raised was much larger than that and has been around since long before any of us drew breath.

or is this just anoth highjack by folks that can't see that some things are greater than party politics.

The system is broken folks.

These politicians...all of em...are products of that.
Don't look to them to change anything without their arms being twisted... because our broken system has facilitated their success.

All our votes do is confirm that we are generally in agreement with them that nothing more than the status quo mediocrity is required.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

I don't see it brought up except by lefties and cino's, CC. It wasn't on the WR platform, for example. Nope.

Fun? Sure, maybe like dragging your nails on a blackboard endlessly is fun. I know, you were making a joke but really - I've had a guts full of 2% of the population constantly sucking up everyone's attention. Who cares, already. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of the endless "phobes" that these progressive pinheads keep creating. Conservatives are not afraid of this or any other behaviours ore religions, hence there is no "phobia" and never was. We're just sick of it. NO fear. Just fed up.

Hullo.........Hullo?....Anybody home?

Harper has gone after gay marriage before. Or promised to anyway.

Its not all lefties and liberals stiring the pot just for a hoot.

But anyway I only mentioned gays as an example of a minority group that could be destroyed by a public vote. Gun owners could be destroyed in the same fashion. This is if we were to rule by voting on every major issue.

[JimPS]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Take it to the street.
Democracy is about dissent and protest.
It is about exercising your rights its about understanding our obligations.

Quit thinking and talking about your rights and start learning what your responsibilities are within a democracy.

Voting once very few years is a way convincing the majority that to protest is to object to ones self or ones own decisions. We accept responsibility for our elected reps decisions.
Pretty clever...

We see this manifested here oddly enough by people saying..."I didn't vote for her...."

So?
What your point?
Is that all you have?

If you object to something...how you voted should have nothing to do with what you do about that.
Quit playing the blame game and go form or join an angry mob and be heard.

Fact is... whether you agree with their position or not...those kids protesting in Quebec... understand their rights and what democracy is better than every person that sat back and sniped at them.
They understand that daily democracy requires active daily participation and the courage to voice their dislikes publicly.
They understand sacrifice and gave of their time...lost a school year and they did it for a principle...not for a couple hundred bucks.

Don't sit back and write letters to politicians.
Read them on street corners and send them to newspapers where they can be seen and heard...not ignored.

Or...just sit back and wait for someone else to do that for you...then criticize their effort....that seems to be the most popular alternative.

Good post - Pesky.

Democracy is all about dissent and protest.

Sheeple generally don't do anything as they are feasted upon by the wolves.

Many are also far to eager to criticize those that have the guts to dissent and protest.

Don't sit back and write letters to politicians.
Read them on street corners and send them to newspapers where they can be seen and heard...not ignored. Or...just sit back and wait for someone else to do that for you...then criticize their effort....that seems to be the most popular alternative.

Only problem is that if most of the members here expressed their views publicly, they'd all be "locked up for 30 days for a mental evaluation".

Jim

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Harper has gone after gay marriage before. Or promised to anyway.

Its not all lefties and liberals stiring the pot just for a hoot.

But anyway I only mentioned gays as an example of a minority group that could be destroyed by a public vote. Gun owners could be destroyed in the same fashion. This is if we were to rule by voting on every major issue.

typical gay tactic,pushing the minor ity card until it becomes accepted. just shovin another thing down the throats of the canadian voter. don't care if a school bus driver is a gun owner, you might want to know if their gay though. wouldn't want little johnnie put at risk,would we?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Harper has gone after gay marriage before. Or promised to anyway.

How can he possibly have "gone after" something that did not exist?

How can he possibly have "gone after" social engineering from unelected Judges?

He doesn't support the notion. Neither do I. How does that make either of us a phobic or a hate monger, exactly? For that matter, how does that make either of us wrong?....because you say so?

Is it acceptable to you that those who hold different opinions should be denounced, pilloried and silenced? Those who think it is (and there are plenty of them) are truly no better than those who ran the Spanish Inquisition. They are our Bishops of the New Order.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by pesky672

So...when did this become all about the WRP and Alberta?

I believe the issue being raised was much larger than that and has been around since long before any of us drew breath.

or is this just anoth highjack by folks that can't see that some things are greater than party politics.

The system is broken folks.

These politicians...all of em...are products of that.
Don't look to them to change anything without their arms being twisted... because our broken system has facilitated their success.

All our votes do is confirm that we are generally in agreement with them that nothing more than the status quo mediocrity is required.

well said,
new boss just like the old boss. democracy is a great idea in principal. we have now created a system with out truth.politicians just telling every one what they want to hear and how bad the other guy is.
get up ,stand up, dont give up the fight. where, alberta hahaha . we can hardly find the time to vote during elections. too busy filling our pockets.
perhaps not all but a large portion of the populace dont care as long as the price of fuel stays reasonable and they have a company gas card. every one seems to get all out of shape over the 2% (sorry R7) getting all the grease. why. because they do something abought their issues. the special interest group rule the roost because the masses are pacified ,have been since seat belt and helmet laws were brought in 30 yrs ago.
all that is needed for evil to prevail is good men to do nothing. boots on the ground is the only way to produce change. till then the alarm will sound when every thing is alright.waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Peace, Order, Good Governement.

Weasel talk for a constitution that protects the government from the people versus the U.S. constitution that is supposed to protect the people from the goverment.

The Canadian Constitution sucks.

But look who made it.

Well, considering that our Constitution has a pedigree that flows back to 1689,I think you'll have to be more specific to exactly whom you are referring in your last sentence. Just to help you along, here's the pedigree:


Bill of Rights (1689)
Act of Settlement (1701)
Treaty of Paris (1763)
Royal Proclamation (1763)
Quebec Act (1774)
Constitution Act (1791)
Act of Union (1840)
Constitution Act (1867)
Statute of Westminster (1931)
Canada Act (1982)
Constitution Act (1982)

Some scholars would suggest that the Canadian Constitution also has has a direct lineage to the Magna Carta (1215). This is still referred to in currant Canadian constitutional cases although the 1982 version of the Constitution makes it easier to argue via codified laws versus the abstract of the MC.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by pesky672

So suffice to say...."real conservatives", run of the mill conservatives, liberals, dippers and even homosexuals all have a common frustration related to the erosion of rights?

And that it isn't a problem that can be legitimately assigned to one political party or to one very recent election?


I guess that would mean that generally... we're all in the same sinking boat and instead of working together... we're arguing about who made the hole and who should bail?

Hmmmm what a concept.....that would mean we'd all have to work together to demand change...across the political spectrum...

To bad we seem so eager to let politicians divide and conquer.

That may very well be true, but some groups like to be coddled a whole lot more. Quite a few single issue voters are pretty easily fooled. Promise bigger welfare checks. Hold their hands, while you skip along in a rainbow dress. Throw in a few disparaging remarks about the opposition not sharing your values and it's pretty easy to divide and conquer.

The coddled that rely on government to tell them what to do, don't recognize erosion of rights until it directly affects them.

Originally Posted by pesky672

If you think any politician is going to restore your rights out of the goodness of their hearts I have news for you.

Harper gave to gun owners but that may be transient.
However...while do so he nibbled away at the rights of EVERY Canadian within the Omnibus bill.

So far I think he's a bit shy of breaking even on the whole rights protection thing...
Probably no worse than the Liberals or the NDP would have done but not a whole lot better either.

I'm not too worked up about the omnibus; really do we want a referendum every 4 days? That might cover all the amendments to to the law. Most of that stuff was what he promised and got voted in on. Not to mention some of the things furthered our freedoms a little.

I may not agree with everything, but all in all I think he's alright. He scored some points when the law was amended concerning apprehension of criminals, and taking of personal info when purchasing non-restricted.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by JimPS

Good post - Pesky.

Democracy is all about dissent and protest.

Sheeple generally don't do anything as they are feasted upon by the wolves.

Many are also far to eager to criticize those that have the guts to dissent and protest.

Don't sit back and write letters to politicians.
Read them on street corners and send them to newspapers where they can be seen and heard...not ignored. Or...just sit back and wait for someone else to do that for you...then criticize their effort....that seems to be the most popular alternative.

Only problem is that if most of the members here expressed their views publicly, they'd all be "locked up for 30 days for a mental evaluation".

Jim

Never happen...the government has closed to many hospital beds to accomodate that amount of crazy

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

That may very well be true, but some groups like to be coddled a whole lot more. Quite a few single issue voters are pretty easily fooled. Promise bigger welfare checks. Hold their hands, while you skip along in a rainbow dress. Throw in a few disparaging remarks about the opposition not sharing your values and it's pretty easy to divide and conquer.

The coddled that rely on government to tell them what to do, don't recognize erosion of rights until it directly affects them.



I'm not too worked up about the omnibus; really do we want a referendum every 4 days? That might cover all the amendments to to the law. Most of that stuff was what he promised and got voted in on. Not to mention some of the things furthered our freedoms a little.

I may not agree with everything, but all in all I think he's alright. He scored some points when the law was amended concerning apprehension of criminals, and taking of personal info when purchasing non-restricted.

I agree. The Fed Cons have by in large lived up to what we wanted/expected them to do.
Its the stuff that they slipped in that under our noses that bothers me.

I voted for them to...but that doesn't mean that I trust em any more than the rest or that they havn't pulled a couple fast ones.

We all try to vote for the folks that we hope will keep their promises and if they do thats great.
But is it enough to be satisfied that a LGR is gone and couple other things?
Shouldn't we be just as concerned with what gets rammed through that they didn't advise us about?
Shouldn't we be most concerned with a gradual erosion of individual freedoms and rights?

When these things slip past us...it just facilitates further oppression at an accelerated rate by whatever government manages to get a majority in future.

We might be happy with Harper and company now...but will we still feel the same way when a future Liberal or NDP government uses legislation passed now to bugger us big time in the future?

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

How can he possibly have "gone after" something that did not exist?

How can he possibly have "gone after" social engineering from unelected Judges?

He doesn't support the notion. Neither do I. How does that make either of us a phobic or a hate monger, exactly? For that matter, how does that make either of us wrong?....because you say so?

Is it acceptable to you that those who hold different opinions should be denounced, pilloried and silenced? Those who think it is (and there are plenty of them) are truly no better than those who ran the Spanish Inquisition. They are our Bishops of the New Order.

Umm...gay marriage is legal. Has been for years. Hence it exists. Harper "went after it" as part of his 2008 campaign. He just didn't follow through.

And when did I say anything about social engineering?

Now MOVING ON.

Since I can't say the word gay without starting a side debate, how about I use unwed mothers as a minority example instead? Happy?

So if the governemt was ruled by taking a vote on every major issue then the majority of people who are not unwed mothers could potentially vote to make that illegal. Would that be right? Probably not. But they could do it if we ruled by majority vote like some people want.

By the same token, the majority could easily vote to take all your guns away. Would that be right? You don't think so. Unfortunately you're not the majority. So in that case it's a GOOD thing that the government doesn't always listen to everything people want.

[waterhawk]

I appears that a lot of you guys do not like out present democratic system. I am not clear what sort of system you are looking for. Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms of government that have been tried from time to time". Can any of you give an example of a political system anywhere in the world that would be preferrable to the one we have.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I appears that a lot of you guys do not like out present democratic system. I am not clear what sort of system you are looking for. Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms of government that have been tried from time to time". Can any of you give an example of a political system anywhere in the world that would be preferrable to the one we have.

In Churchill's day, the average voter at least possessed a set of shared values and knew something about national and world history. Even then, it was imperfect.

Now, we have voters who have been raised by strangers, taught by unionist social engineers and told a thousand times that they are special, worthy, enlightened and the culmination of millions of years of evolution and that life should be easy. The news of the day is fed to them by other amoral social engineers. Success and achievement attracts envy, suspicion and a drive to take - unless it is someone who plays a game or an actor.

That must be some part of the reason that liberals can so easily win an election by hollering "abortion!" and/or "homo-sexual!" and/or "religion!"

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Umm...gay marriage is legal. Has been for years. Hence it exists. Harper "went after it" as part of his 2008 campaign. He just didn't follow through.

You missed my point. Perhaps it was too subtle.

Gay marriage was a concept created by unelected Judges. It was not created through any part of the democratic process. Nobody was asked if they wanted this extension to a social and moral tradition '000's of years old. Some activists demanded it, some activist judges said "OK" and all the rest of us could only watch. Harper offered to let us have a say. That is hardly "going after" anything. That's the way it ought to be.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

In Churchill's day, the average voter at least possessed a set of shared values and knew something about national and world history. Even then, it was imperfect.

Now, we have voters who have been raised by strangers, taught by unionist social engineers and told a thousand times that they are special, worthy, enlightened and the culmination of millions of years of evolution and that life should be easy. The news of the day is fed to them by other amoral social engineers. Success and achievement attracts envy, suspicion and a drive to take - unless it is someone who plays a game or an actor.

That must be some part of the reason that liberals can so easily win an election by hollering "abortion!" and/or "homo-sexual!" and/or "religion!"

I am in complete agreement with what you say. The question is, what can be done about it?

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

You missed my point. Perhaps it was too subtle.

Gay marriage was a concept created by unelected Judges. It was not created through any part of the democratic process. Nobody was asked if they wanted this extension to a social and moral tradition '000's of years old. Some activists demanded it, some activist judges said "OK" and all the rest of us could only watch. Harper offered to let us have a say. That is hardly "going after" anything. That's the way it ought to be.

Gay marriage is constitutional. Meaning that it's a harmless freedom that doesn't hurt anyone. In other words they are entitled to it the same way you are. There was nothing to vote on unless people want to rewrite the constitution so that the freedom part doesn't extend to everyone in which case you'd be inviting all kinds of trouble; for yourself and everyone else.

As far as the tradition of marriage, it's based on a religion that's been disagreed upon so many times it's got a bunch of offshoots with different names doing pretty much the same thing. If gays had their own version of Christianity called gayism or something and the priest wore a poodle on his head would that be sufficiently different from your wedding?

Now people may often dislike the constitution when it happens to protect the beliefs of someone you don't agree with. But it protects yours too, insofar as you can get married in whatever fashion you see fit with no interferance from the gay activists.

Now if we want to wander off territory and look at polygamists (did I spell that right?), well now you've got something that often results in fraud, human subjegation, inbreeding, and a bunch of other things that AREN'T protected by the constitution and for good reason. Hence the state will often interfere with such goings on.

Bottom line, the modern day majority doesn't really get a say in some things unless they want to open the door and say "it's okay to deny freedoms to some people".

[fargineyesore]

Many countries have had to have armed revolutions against their politicians to get their attention. France had to hang a few. Canada hasn't had that....yet.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I appears that a lot of you guys do not like out present democratic system. I am not clear what sort of system you are looking for. Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms of government that have been tried from time to time". Can any of you give an example of a political system anywhere in the world that would be preferrable to the one we have.

The Swiss political system.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by greylynx

The Swiss political system.

Thank you for pointing this out. I have done some quick reading and the Swiss system does sound very interesting. I intend to do a bit of a study on it.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Gay marriage was a concept created by unelected Judges. It was not created through any part of the democratic process. Nobody was asked if they wanted this extension to a social and moral tradition '000's of years old.

Sooooo... you would support an initiative of an democratically elected President Obama over an unelected US Supreme Court.... yeah... sure you would. LOL

Really Rock, you follow no actual principle in this regard. It's all dependent upon the issue and who's rights are involved.... yours or someone else's. Same-sex marriage = hate the courts and constitution. Gun rights = love the courts and constitution.

[The Elkster]

People aren't in the streets rioting because things aren't that bad. At least not yet. When/if people stop seeing CPP checks and other things that affect a majority then we might see less apathy. We can gripe all we want but none of us have it that bad. Look around the world and if you take things as a whole we live in argueably the best country in the world. The fact that we have the luxury of time to even debate this is a good indicator.

I don't buy into the BS about the romanticised past and people being different. The majority of people have always been sheeple that have been content to be led by someone else. Its generally only when conditions have gotten really terrible (starvation, rampant abuse, iron fist military control) that people have risen up. Most people are happy to live day to day eaking out an existence and enjoying family and friends. Like it or not that is human nature. That has always been and that is never going to change.

I agree with wisky wish. The best you can do is put on a clean outfit and go out and collect votes and try to steer the ship in another direction. Nope you are never going to be able to ram everything through and IMO thank god. That'd basically be just another dictatorship and we know how that always works out no matter who is at the helm. No one man can speak for 30 million individuals. I and everyone else is subject to bias and that bais has to be kept in check or we are doomed to far worse than we have now. When you have 30 million people in a country you are never going to have complete peace or agreement NEVER.

Should a city have bylaws to limit parking? Noise? Garbage? Should we have regulations on food safety? Environment? Stock market manipulation? If so how much? There are thousands of issues that arise each day and with each one comes many different ways we could handle them and no obvious answer. I should say no obvious answer when all interests are considered. If all we care about is say a business then get rid of those pesky environmental regs...add to that the fact that people have to live in whatever filth is left from that business and its another issue. Add in the other issue of people and there bias and it adds another layer.

And when we are talking about "education" are we talking about FOX news and MSNBC "education"? Where lies, inuendo and fearmongering are used in an attempt to fool people into the right and left line of thinking. Do we really want educated free thinkers or do we want people "educated/brainwashed" to agree with a certain vision? I'd prefer not to live in a socialist compound or a business friendly religious commune thanks.

[Whiskey Wish]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Like 10 wolves and 9 sheep voting what's for dinner??? (or to characterize it more accurately, 10 welfare recipients and 9 taxpayers voting for increased gov't spending)

Thanks for making my point. If the majority of people in a democracy want 6 weeks vacation, etc etc, then that is what they will vote for. Exactly!! And each generation wants a little more, and a little more and a little more. Man this "free" stuff from the government is awesome!! Why shouldn't everyone get all the stuff they want for "free"? Why put a limit on it?

Democracy is the majority of the people voting for the path they want their state to take. Nowhere is it written that the majority always picks the right path.

So your solution is?? I know, we will just make you dictator for life because you will make all the right choices for us.

It is amazing how one person, namely you, can call all of the people who freely elect a government....wrong....but you are right.

All I can say is evidently you do not believe in democracy and are having a difficult time convincing the rest of the world you are right.
Regards,
Dave.

[Classic_Cool]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

So your solution is?? I know, we will just make you dictator for life because you will make all the right choices for us.

It is amazing how one person, namely you, can call all of the people who freely elect a government....wrong....but you are right.

All I can say is evidently you do not believe in democracy and are having a difficult time convincing the rest of the world you are right.
Regards,
Dave.

What fairy tale are you reading?

A billion people can be wrong. Almost as bad, they can be apathetic. I can easily see the entire country voting for 6 weeks of vacation, a terrific EI program, and no tax hikes ever. Why? Because it'll make their little niche of the world easier for however far they plan ahead.

Some of the voters may think globally with an eye on the future but I guarantee ALOT of them don't.

[The Elkster]

Yes many people are stupid and many people who think they are smart are no better. Maybe not stupid but bias and primarily self serving and often very manipulative. Are these the people we want dictating to the masses? Smart people aren't immune to the trappings of human nature. I dare say we should be more worried about those driven by greed and extreme self interest than those just clueless about balancing a budget.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Wish

So your solution is?? I know, we will just make you dictator for life because you will make all the right choices for us.

It is amazing how one person, namely you, can call all of the people who freely elect a government....wrong....but you are right.

All I can say is evidently you do not believe in democracy and are having a difficult time convincing the rest of the world you are right.
Regards,
Dave.

Democracy would work great if the people voting took the responsibility of voting seriously. Sadly, many of the people that walk into the voting booth, put as much thought and effort into their vote as they do into their lives.

Democracy is more than just dragging your ass down to the voting booth and making a mark by the guy that promises the most cookies.

You ask for a solution. How about we exclude those people that could care less about voting responsibly from voting. If you can't be bothered to earn a living and look after yourself, why should you get to vote how MY money is spent? If you choose to rape kids, rob banks, or whatever else lands you in jail, why should you get to vote?

I honestly think voting should be limited to taxpayers. But I know that will never happen because there are too many people that think voting need not carry any responsibility. Freedom = responsibility = consequences. Too many people are happy to forego those three ingredients of a democracy.

[Okotokian]

You know who thinks our democratic system is wildly out of whack? The supporters of the losing party in the last election, every time, at every level of government. From this forum to the Jack Layton memorials that took place yesterday.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Classic_Cool

Gay marriage is constitutional.

Please quote that part of the Constitution for me. Verbatim, if you please.

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I am in complete agreement with what you say. The question is, what can be done about it?

The $64 question. I'm not sure; I think the answer is large. I do know that unless more of us start speaking up and ignoring the lieberal peanut gallery, we're toast.