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  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Take2





Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 91
Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
It is now time for a serious question. Would you not rather go down in an honest fight, where you knew you were on the side of right, and you had told the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather that lie your way into power? Long term, would that not mean that people would trust you more, and that you would have impeccable credibility on a wide range of issues?

What you are talking about, that has led us into our current situation, where leaders get no respect from, and show none for the electorate. Where question period is about sound bites instead of answers, and responsible government is a secondary concern. People talk about raising the level of public discourse, but very few seem to be serious about it.
Well put kwlafayette.

I know it's something I'd like to see happen for a change. Do we really want another Dalton like premier?

Because giving the electorate a choice between re-electing Premier Pinocchio or Conservative alternative, Pinochio B won't get a conservative government elected.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
Honesty no longer gets you in the corridors of power. McGunity did it in 2007, lying his way to victory about the faith based school, despite the fact that he and his children went to a government run faith based school.
In my opinion, it is better to lose an honest fight than win a rigged one. Expect John Tory Jr. as the next Ontario PC leader if yours is the prevailing attitude.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting rid of the HRC's is a winner with the small c part of the party. After a few adds are run showing some of the abuses of the HRC's during an election it might be a vote getter.

This is a much better issue than faith based schools. The whole backlash was because of Muslim schools that taught intolerance. The HRC's issue has to do with Muslim extremists using the courts to try to control free speech(Steyn). Total opposite of faith based schools.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
It is now time for a serious question. Would you not rather go down in an honest fight, where you knew you were on the side of right, and you had told the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather that lie your way into power? Long term, would that not mean that people would trust you more, and that you would have impeccable credibility on a wide range of issues?

What you are talking about, that has led us into our current situation, where leaders get no respect from, and show none for the electorate. Where question period is about sound bites instead of answers, and responsible government is a secondary concern. People talk about raising the level of public discourse, but very few seem to be serious about it.

What is dishonest about Hudak (or anyone) saying they want to reform the HRCs to replace the current irrational system with one based on jurisprudence? Yes, the Liberals could attempt to spin that into abolishing the HRCs but it's a defensible position.

-Mac
SFrank85





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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
SFrank85 wrote:
Honesty no longer gets you in the corridors of power. McGunity did it in 2007, lying his way to victory about the faith based school, despite the fact that he and his children went to a government run faith based school.
In my opinion, it is better to lose an honest fight than win a rigged one. Expect John Tory Jr. as the next Ontario PC leader if yours is the prevailing attitude.


I am not saying that is my position, but it is the position of “Conservative” parties in this country.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didn't we already try and bend over for the center with the last guy?

If Elliot wants to be the Liberal Conservative candidate by slapping down Conservative Principals and the "correct" action because it may be seen as unpopular then I will continue to wonder what difference there is between Tory and Elliot?

Harris ran on an unapologetic Conservative platform which many within the party thought would sink us, and instead he overcame a double digit Liberal lead in order to win a majority in 1995.

The Harris approach worked in 1995 and 1999, which seems to be the approach Hudak is taking,

The Tory and Eves approach failed in 2003 and 2007 yet that is the approach Elliot seems to be taking.
Pissedoff





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 474
Reputation: 145.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a Canadian in China who knows all about the abusive HRCs, all I can say if there are people in Canada who don't know, they must be dumb stupid or illiterate. Are there really idiots who don't know about feminazi Lynch stomping her jackboots all over the war memorial?

It seems that their antics has appeared in lots of the MSM.

National Post editorial board:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission's unbalanced view of critics
Posted: June 18, 2009, 8:33 AM by NP Editor

http://network.nationalpost.co.....itics.aspx
FF_Canuck





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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm following the twitter feed of someone who's at the leader debates right now. Seems that Klees has joined Elliot in arguing against HRC reform, saying that being against them is being against human rights?
Willg





Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 361
Reputation: 96Reputation: 96
Location: 905

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Didn't we already try and bend over for the center with the last guy?

If Elliot wants to be the Liberal Conservative candidate by slapping down Conservative Principals and the "correct" action because it may be seen as unpopular then I will continue to wonder what difference there is between Tory and Elliot?

Harris ran on an unapologetic Conservative platform which many within the party thought would sink us, and instead he overcame a double digit Liberal lead in order to win a majority in 1995.

The Harris approach worked in 1995 and 1999, which seems to be the approach Hudak is taking,

The Tory and Eves approach failed in 2003 and 2007 yet that is the approach Elliot seems to be taking.


What Harris did effectively in 1995 was clearly communicate his policies and explain the Common Sense Revolution, something that the PC Party was ineffective at doing in 2007. The fact that the Liberals ran a terrible campaign that year (1995) also assisted us greatly.

I'd think most people would agree that the MSM would eat the PC Party alive in 2011 if they ran to abolish the HRC simply because most of the public is uneducated about the issue. Is this going to be a complex issue to explain to the public is the question I'd like to see.

BTW, I thought that Klees was always in favor of keeping the commission.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willg wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
Didn't we already try and bend over for the center with the last guy?

If Elliot wants to be the Liberal Conservative candidate by slapping down Conservative Principals and the "correct" action because it may be seen as unpopular then I will continue to wonder what difference there is between Tory and Elliot?

Harris ran on an unapologetic Conservative platform which many within the party thought would sink us, and instead he overcame a double digit Liberal lead in order to win a majority in 1995.

The Harris approach worked in 1995 and 1999, which seems to be the approach Hudak is taking,

The Tory and Eves approach failed in 2003 and 2007 yet that is the approach Elliot seems to be taking.


What Harris did effectively in 1995 was clearly communicate his policies and explain the Common Sense Revolution, something that the PC Party was ineffective at doing in 2007. The fact that the Liberals ran a terrible campaign that year (1995) also assisted us greatly.

I'd think most people would agree that the MSM would eat the PC Party alive in 2011 if they ran to abolish the HRC simply because most of the public is uneducated about the issue. Is this going to be a complex issue to explain to the public is the question I'd like to see.

BTW, I thought that Klees was always in favor of keeping the commission.


The Progressive Conservatives went from 23% support prior to the election to 44.8% on election day, while I will certainly admit that McLeod and Bill 167 certainly gave us the ammo to go after the front runner, I would give Harris most of the credit in winning that election.

You are correct, he was very clear when he communicated his platform and policies but they were Conservative policies.

Lower Taxes, Cuts to Welfare, Reducing Government Spending.

The fact that the public is uneducated about the issue cannot keep being our reason for not moving forward with the correct policies.

Harris ran on cutting social programs and forcing welfare recipients to work for their cheques and won a huge majority,

When did we get to a point where we started being ashamed of being Conservative?
Willg





Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 361
Reputation: 96Reputation: 96
Location: 905

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it is a matter of not bringing the HRC issue forth in the 2011 election, it is whether the party can effectively communicate our position that will have to go against the MSM and Liberal attack ads on that issue. Mike Harris did an excellent job of that in 1995, but in 2007 we let the Liberals spin faith-based schools however they wanted. We are going to need a very good PR campaign in 2011 if we are going to bring this issue forth.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willg wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of not bringing the HRC issue forth in the 2011 election, it is whether the party can effectively communicate our position that will have to go against the MSM and Liberal attack ads on that issue. Mike Harris did an excellent job of that in 1995, but in 2007 we let the Liberals spin faith-based schools however they wanted. We are going to need a very good PR campaign in 2011 if we are going to bring this issue forth.


We need a good orator at the helm of the party, and a platform that is longer then the menu at Boston Pizza.
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I'm following the twitter feed of someone who's at the leader debates right now. Seems that Klees has joined Elliot in arguing against HRC reform, saying that being against them is being against human rights?


Not exactly. If you read the material Hudak and Klees have similar proposals, that differ in semantics (abolish and replace vs. reform), which basically have the same result: a system with better controls on procedure, rules of evidence, and fairness, which is limited to true discrimination.

However, Hudak, is trashing KLEES as liberal-light for pointing out that you can accomplish the same thing without the controversy.

In fact from the point of view of someone who wants to stop the danger of the HRC Klees has the better policy because Hudak's (despite being almost exactly the same) comes across to the average ignorant Ontario as "OMG AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS! BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!"

Anyways Hudak should stop breaking the 11th commandment that he so proudly articulated as the cornerstone of his campaign.

He's the only one to make this fight personal and the only one to break #11.

Please, don't vote Hudak if you want an honest leader who does what he says. He can't even keep a promise for the whole campaign.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:


Please, don't vote Hudak if you want an honest leader who does what he says. He can't even keep a promise for the whole campaign.


My fear of Elliott winning far outweighs my concerns with Hudak.
I may consider Klees, but Hudak over the other two seems to be the way I will be voting.
DavidK





Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1520
Reputation: 68.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
hamiltonguyo wrote:


Please, don't vote Hudak if you want an honest leader who does what he says. He can't even keep a promise for the whole campaign.


My fear of Elliott winning far outweighs my concerns with Hudak.
I may consider Klees, but Hudak over the other two seems to be the way I will be voting.


If Elliott wins, I'll be ripping up my membership and never voting PC as long as she's leader. I like Tim, and I like Frank and Randy too. But my main choices are Tim and Frank. I'm worried about Klees' sincerity too, because while I can get with his policies, he has been flip floppy in the past.

And btw, Christine started the ball rolling and broke the 11th commandment.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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 cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Poll: Scrapping Human Rights Tribunal = Faith Based Funding

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB