Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  

What type of Torie do you consider yourself to be?
Blue
78%
 78%  [ 45 ]
Red
21%
 21%  [ 12 ]
Total Votes : 57

Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was it this one.... World's Smallest Political Quiz or this one.... Political Compass?

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just reminded of Pournelle's Political Axes ...


I have some minor quibbles, but I find it more logically consistent than the 'left-right' diad, or the economic / social axes concepts. OTOH, it's hard to use in broader discussions, because no one else uses the metric.

Edit: To head-off some anger, 'irrationalism' is not used as a pejorative here - the 'rationalism' axis is meant to be the degree to which a person (or philosophy) believes there are rational solutions for social problems. I'm probably a 2 x 3.5 or 4.
nathaliejcaron





Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 305
Reputation: 20.4Reputation: 20.4
votes: 2
Location: Ottawa West -- Nepean

PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RE: license to procreate

I know it would not work, I would never actually advocate that. It's just one of those imaginary notions, totally inapplicable in reality.

Sorry to confuse any of you. :roll:
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathaliejcaron wrote:
RE: license to procreate

I know it would not work, I would never actually advocate that. It's just one of those imaginary notions, totally inapplicable in reality.

Sorry to confuse any of you. :roll:


Sorry to have jumped so hard on that, I just can't stand the thought of yet another government department I would needlessly have to get permission from to go about having a reasonable life.
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say I'm a purple Tory if there's such a thing. More Blue-ish purple.....
bsenka





Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 227
Reputation: 86.8Reputation: 86.8
votes: 4

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A red tory is just a confused Liberal.
Daveeire





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 236
Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can accept alot of Red but I do want the free speech issue dealt with so that myself and othes can put forward opinions without concern of being dragged before the CHRT. Pretty minimal request but one that has been ignored by the powers that be for a few years now.
ConservateurQc





Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.2
Location: Québec

PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm probably blue on most of the issue on economic and fiscal issue like free-market, improve productivity and efficiency and so on.

I believe that government should be limited to the basic needs of a country. (Banks and money management, immigration, defence, foreign policy, etc. ) But it needs to have the ability to respond to the request of the population (what's the point of electing a new government if all spending is already fixed with no margin to put in application his promess...)

The individual usually do better than the government so give them the flexibility to do so.
When you do so, you can redure taxes. Remember, a little bit more than a hundred years ago, the government used to raise tax only when the country was going to war. We shouldn't be to drastic but their space to do something.

In general, I believe that the individual do better than procedure, process, system, group, union, lobbies, etc. So, in term of social issue, I'm less likely to let some law or legislation dictate the limit the beaviour of human being. I'm more of a John Locke about social issue. For instance, on the abortion issue, we know that in a ideal world, we would not kill the beginning of life. But the reality is that a human being can make his own choice. Some say without the legalization of abortion, lots of children didn't had a chance to live their life. But the reality is that "home-made abortion" would exist, and thoses babies would probably die in a "worst" situation that could even put the life of the mother in danger. We have to be pragmatic and not ignoring the reality. Education is the key.

Same thing with same sex marriage. The question shouldn't be if we agree or not. I believe that we should rethink the whole concept of marriage institution. (I exclude all religious issue in this case but just focus on the legal issue). Is the reason why we create or legitimize the marriage institution is still valide today? I believe we should have only one institution to link people together for legal issue only. Maybe a more simple one. And please keep seperate the religion from the government to define marriage.

Finally, I'm against discrimination so I support multiculturalism and the openness to immigration. Remember, we are all immigrants, except for the natives.

Nathalie J Caron: Did you know that in the Anciant Greek the state use to take in charge all children upon their birth? Unique education for all and they make sure they start their life with the same chance. Forget about the license... :lol:


[/u]
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConservateurQc wrote:
I'm probably blue on most of the issue on economic and fiscal issue like free-market, improve productivity and efficiency and so on.

I believe that government should be limited to the basic needs of a country. (Banks and money management, immigration, defence, foreign policy, etc. ) But it needs to have the ability to respond to the request of the population (what's the point of electing a new government if all spending is already fixed with no margin to put in application his promess...)

The individual usually do better than the government so give them the flexibility to do so.
When you do so, you can redure taxes. Remember, a little bit more than a hundred years ago, the government used to raise tax only when the country was going to war. We shouldn't be to drastic but their space to do something.

In general, I believe that the individual do better than procedure, process, system, group, union, lobbies, etc. So, in term of social issue, I'm less likely to let some law or legislation dictate the limit the beaviour of human being. I'm more of a John Locke about social issue. For instance, on the abortion issue, we know that in a ideal world, we would not kill the beginning of life. But the reality is that a human being can make his own choice. Some say without the legalization of abortion, lots of children didn't had a chance to live their life. But the reality is that "home-made abortion" would exist, and thoses babies would probably die in a "worst" situation that could even put the life of the mother in danger. We have to be pragmatic and not ignoring the reality. Education is the key.

Same thing with same sex marriage. The question shouldn't be if we agree or not. I believe that we should rethink the whole concept of marriage institution. (I exclude all religious issue in this case but just focus on the legal issue). Is the reason why we create or legitimize the marriage institution is still valide today? I believe we should have only one institution to link people together for legal issue only. Maybe a more simple one. And please keep seperate the religion from the government to define marriage.

Finally, I'm against discrimination so I support multiculturalism and the openness to immigration. Remember, we are all immigrants, except for the natives.

Nathalie J Caron: Did you know that in the Anciant Greek the state use to take in charge all children upon their birth? Unique education for all and they make sure they start their life with the same chance. Forget about the license... :lol:


[/u]


Abortion is abortion, no matter if it is done “home made” or in a clinic. As a matter of fact, abortions take place when the doctor rips apart the foetus, however in late-term abortions; the doctor pulls out the baby, and crushes its skull.

Do you seriously think governments should NOT get involved? As a matter of fact, governments ARE involved in abortion, just by the fact of supplying funding for abortions.

Also, you are against government involvement into people’s lives, yet by making same-sex marriage legal, governments not only got involved in to, they redefined it!
ConservateurQc





Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.2
Location: Québec

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
ConservateurQc wrote:
I'm probably blue on most of the issue on economic and fiscal issue like free-market, improve productivity and efficiency and so on.

I believe that government should be limited to the basic needs of a country. (Banks and money management, immigration, defence, foreign policy, etc. ) But it needs to have the ability to respond to the request of the population (what's the point of electing a new government if all spending is already fixed with no margin to put in application his promess...)

The individual usually do better than the government so give them the flexibility to do so.
When you do so, you can redure taxes. Remember, a little bit more than a hundred years ago, the government used to raise tax only when the country was going to war. We shouldn't be to drastic but their space to do something.

In general, I believe that the individual do better than procedure, process, system, group, union, lobbies, etc. So, in term of social issue, I'm less likely to let some law or legislation dictate the limit the beaviour of human being. I'm more of a John Locke about social issue. For instance, on the abortion issue, we know that in a ideal world, we would not kill the beginning of life. But the reality is that a human being can make his own choice. Some say without the legalization of abortion, lots of children didn't had a chance to live their life. But the reality is that "home-made abortion" would exist, and thoses babies would probably die in a "worst" situation that could even put the life of the mother in danger. We have to be pragmatic and not ignoring the reality. Education is the key.

Same thing with same sex marriage. The question shouldn't be if we agree or not. I believe that we should rethink the whole concept of marriage institution. (I exclude all religious issue in this case but just focus on the legal issue). Is the reason why we create or legitimize the marriage institution is still valide today? I believe we should have only one institution to link people together for legal issue only. Maybe a more simple one. And please keep seperate the religion from the government to define marriage.

Finally, I'm against discrimination so I support multiculturalism and the openness to immigration. Remember, we are all immigrants, except for the natives.

Nathalie J Caron: Did you know that in the Anciant Greek the state use to take in charge all children upon their birth? Unique education for all and they make sure they start their life with the same chance. Forget about the license... :lol:


[/u]


Abortion is abortion, no matter if it is done “home made” or in a clinic. As a matter of fact, abortions take place when the doctor rips apart the foetus, however in late-term abortions; the doctor pulls out the baby, and crushes its skull.

Do you seriously think governments should NOT get involved? As a matter of fact, governments ARE involved in abortion, just by the fact of supplying funding for abortions.

Also, you are against government involvement into people’s lives, yet by making same-sex marriage legal, governments not only got involved in to, they redefined it!


I don't disagree when you say that "Abortion is abortion". The only thing that I'm saying is that even if the government get involve or not, abortion will happen. Since this have been say, it is better to have an abortion in a clinic than done by some people predending being doctor or whatever. Their a danger that if it is illegal, a black market of abortion will emerge and the problem won't be solve. Education is the key.

Second, I agree that government shouldn't be involve in marriage but the reality is that their tax deduction for people in marriage. Do you believe we should remove them?

Third, same sex marriage is just a reflection of reality. Some peoples live together because they love each other. Big deal.... But I still think the government should rethink the definition of marriage to have a more wide opening about the reality. It is a little bit like religion. We can discriminate people for their religion, so do we with the sexual orientation. Truely, what the government have to do in this kind of relationship. This is just a recongnition of the reality. We have to be pragmatic.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't there already an active thread discussing abortion? I don't see "abortion" in the title of this thread... ;)

-Mac
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConservateurQc wrote:
SFrank85 wrote:
ConservateurQc wrote:
I'm probably blue on most of the issue on economic and fiscal issue like free-market, improve productivity and efficiency and so on.

I believe that government should be limited to the basic needs of a country. (Banks and money management, immigration, defence, foreign policy, etc. ) But it needs to have the ability to respond to the request of the population (what's the point of electing a new government if all spending is already fixed with no margin to put in application his promess...)

The individual usually do better than the government so give them the flexibility to do so.
When you do so, you can redure taxes. Remember, a little bit more than a hundred years ago, the government used to raise tax only when the country was going to war. We shouldn't be to drastic but their space to do something.

In general, I believe that the individual do better than procedure, process, system, group, union, lobbies, etc. So, in term of social issue, I'm less likely to let some law or legislation dictate the limit the beaviour of human being. I'm more of a John Locke about social issue. For instance, on the abortion issue, we know that in a ideal world, we would not kill the beginning of life. But the reality is that a human being can make his own choice. Some say without the legalization of abortion, lots of children didn't had a chance to live their life. But the reality is that "home-made abortion" would exist, and thoses babies would probably die in a "worst" situation that could even put the life of the mother in danger. We have to be pragmatic and not ignoring the reality. Education is the key.

Same thing with same sex marriage. The question shouldn't be if we agree or not. I believe that we should rethink the whole concept of marriage institution. (I exclude all religious issue in this case but just focus on the legal issue). Is the reason why we create or legitimize the marriage institution is still valide today? I believe we should have only one institution to link people together for legal issue only. Maybe a more simple one. And please keep seperate the religion from the government to define marriage.

Finally, I'm against discrimination so I support multiculturalism and the openness to immigration. Remember, we are all immigrants, except for the natives.

Nathalie J Caron: Did you know that in the Anciant Greek the state use to take in charge all children upon their birth? Unique education for all and they make sure they start their life with the same chance. Forget about the license... :lol:


[/u]


Abortion is abortion, no matter if it is done “home made” or in a clinic. As a matter of fact, abortions take place when the doctor rips apart the foetus, however in late-term abortions; the doctor pulls out the baby, and crushes its skull.

Do you seriously think governments should NOT get involved? As a matter of fact, governments ARE involved in abortion, just by the fact of supplying funding for abortions.

Also, you are against government involvement into people’s lives, yet by making same-sex marriage legal, governments not only got involved in to, they redefined it!


I don't disagree when you say that "Abortion is abortion". The only thing that I'm saying is that even if the government get involve or not, abortion will happen. Since this have been say, it is better to have an abortion in a clinic than done by some people predending being doctor or whatever. Their a danger that if it is illegal, a black market of abortion will emerge and the problem won't be solve. Education is the key.

Second, I agree that government shouldn't be involve in marriage but the reality is that their tax deduction for people in marriage. Do you believe we should remove them?

Third, same sex marriage is just a reflection of reality. Some peoples live together because they love each other. Big deal.... But I still think the government should rethink the definition of marriage to have a more wide opening about the reality. It is a little bit like religion. We can discriminate people for their religion, so do we with the sexual orientation. Truely, what the government have to do in this kind of relationship. This is just a recongnition of the reality. We have to be pragmatic.


Your logic confuses me. Abortion should take place, so it should happen in a state funded, state sanctioned way? Well maybe we should have state sanctioned mass murder every third Saturday of the month, because murder will happen anyways. After all, a human would lose their dignity being shot on the street; maybe we should take them to a nice beautiful park, or shot them in the grave yard so their family would not have to spend money on a funeral while grieving.

If Same-Sex marriage was really about tax issues, then the government could have simply amended the tax code for same-sex couples without getting religious institutions involved.
905 Tory





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 267
Reputation: 79.4Reputation: 79.4
votes: 2

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am blue all the way. However, just to bring in the previous discussion about same-sex marriage. I think that as a government, they shouldn't be getting involved in marriage. Its a religious institution. The most fair thing would be to re-name the government word of 'marriage' into 'civil union' (expanding the former definition of civil union). Therefore, religious institutions wouldn't be going crazy. Otherwise, the government has no choice but to offer marriage to any two people (from any sex).
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

905 Tory wrote:
I am blue all the way. However, just to bring in the previous discussion about same-sex marriage. I think that as a government, they shouldn't be getting involved in marriage. Its a religious institution. The most fair thing would be to re-name the government word of 'marriage' into 'civil union' (expanding the former definition of civil union). Therefore, religious institutions wouldn't be going crazy. Otherwise, the government has no choice but to offer marriage to any two people (from any sex).


That is a good common ground that I can agree with.
ConservateurQc





Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.2
Location: Québec

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
ConservateurQc wrote:
SFrank85 wrote:
ConservateurQc wrote:
I'm probably blue on most of the issue on economic and fiscal issue like free-market, improve productivity and efficiency and so on.

I believe that government should be limited to the basic needs of a country. (Banks and money management, immigration, defence, foreign policy, etc. ) But it needs to have the ability to respond to the request of the population (what's the point of electing a new government if all spending is already fixed with no margin to put in application his promess...)

The individual usually do better than the government so give them the flexibility to do so.
When you do so, you can redure taxes. Remember, a little bit more than a hundred years ago, the government used to raise tax only when the country was going to war. We shouldn't be to drastic but their space to do something.

In general, I believe that the individual do better than procedure, process, system, group, union, lobbies, etc. So, in term of social issue, I'm less likely to let some law or legislation dictate the limit the beaviour of human being. I'm more of a John Locke about social issue. For instance, on the abortion issue, we know that in a ideal world, we would not kill the beginning of life. But the reality is that a human being can make his own choice. Some say without the legalization of abortion, lots of children didn't had a chance to live their life. But the reality is that "home-made abortion" would exist, and thoses babies would probably die in a "worst" situation that could even put the life of the mother in danger. We have to be pragmatic and not ignoring the reality. Education is the key.

Same thing with same sex marriage. The question shouldn't be if we agree or not. I believe that we should rethink the whole concept of marriage institution. (I exclude all religious issue in this case but just focus on the legal issue). Is the reason why we create or legitimize the marriage institution is still valide today? I believe we should have only one institution to link people together for legal issue only. Maybe a more simple one. And please keep seperate the religion from the government to define marriage.

Finally, I'm against discrimination so I support multiculturalism and the openness to immigration. Remember, we are all immigrants, except for the natives.

Nathalie J Caron: Did you know that in the Anciant Greek the state use to take in charge all children upon their birth? Unique education for all and they make sure they start their life with the same chance. Forget about the license... :lol:


[/u]


Abortion is abortion, no matter if it is done “home made” or in a clinic. As a matter of fact, abortions take place when the doctor rips apart the foetus, however in late-term abortions; the doctor pulls out the baby, and crushes its skull.

Do you seriously think governments should NOT get involved? As a matter of fact, governments ARE involved in abortion, just by the fact of supplying funding for abortions.

Also, you are against government involvement into people’s lives, yet by making same-sex marriage legal, governments not only got involved in to, they redefined it!


I don't disagree when you say that "Abortion is abortion". The only thing that I'm saying is that even if the government get involve or not, abortion will happen. Since this have been say, it is better to have an abortion in a clinic than done by some people predending being doctor or whatever. Their a danger that if it is illegal, a black market of abortion will emerge and the problem won't be solve. Education is the key.

Second, I agree that government shouldn't be involve in marriage but the reality is that their tax deduction for people in marriage. Do you believe we should remove them?

Third, same sex marriage is just a reflection of reality. Some peoples live together because they love each other. Big deal.... But I still think the government should rethink the definition of marriage to have a more wide opening about the reality. It is a little bit like religion. We can discriminate people for their religion, so do we with the sexual orientation. Truely, what the government have to do in this kind of relationship. This is just a recongnition of the reality. We have to be pragmatic.


Your logic confuses me. Abortion should take place, so it should happen in a state funded, state sanctioned way? Well maybe we should have state sanctioned mass murder every third Saturday of the month, because murder will happen anyways. After all, a human would lose their dignity being shot on the street; maybe we should take them to a nice beautiful park, or shot them in the grave yard so their family would not have to spend money on a funeral while grieving.

If Same-Sex marriage was really about tax issues, then the government could have simply amended the tax code for same-sex couples without getting religious institutions involved.


I will try to bring a light to your confusion. It is like casino or alcohol. It use to be illegal but their was always groups of criminal trying to make money out of it. You can get rid of the demand of casino or alcohol. If the society find that it is better to control it instead of letting it go, well it is better to have control from the government. The question should be:"Does the governement really wants to control the lottery or alcohol business" or "Is the casino or alcohol are a big treat enough to the society to involve the government into it?" That I don't know.
But in term of priority, I believe that it is more an issue to have murderers running around the streets than have gamblers or drinkers around. And even more than abortion, but it is just my own opinion. Probably because I believe that abortion is more of a medical act than a murder.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What kind of Tory are you?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB