For those who vote conservative.

No one has the right to force a woman , to carry a zygote- fetus she does not want for 9 months then give birth to it. No one. Period........ As for the rest of your cut and paste comments, the same drivel ,over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

No one has the right to force a woman , to carry a zygote- fetus she does not want for 9 months then give birth to it. No one. Period........ As for the rest of your cut and paste comments, the same drivel ,over and over again.

---

Then,what about the rights of the other half of the equation? Surely,you won't try to tell us that fathers have no say in the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Then,what about the rights of the other half of the equation? Surely,you won't try to tell us that fathers have no say in the matter.

---

Don't worry about what he has to say, other than for amusement at the moment debate with him is a waste of time, there is no law preventing gender based, late term abortions etc., no protection for women, no requirement to provide alternatives and warnings on possible issues and he is OK with it.... the unborn dying painful deaths... no problem... to HIM. I learned long ago that beating ideologues with reality, facts, morality and even fists doesn't change their minds at all....

Why argue with me, the LAW says it is so. The courts back up those laws. I will make it simple so you will understand....You do not become a father until the baby is born. That is why when a man finds out about the pregnancy he says, 'I am GOING to be a father'. He does not say, 'I am a father', why? because until the birth he is not. After the birth, his rights of fatherhood kick in. Until that point he has no rights over the fetus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benjhind

Would you vote for a person who was openly a member of the KKK, but declared that there would be no government lynchings under their tenure? If it is just their personal beliefs, how could you hold that against them?

To the left, human rights are important. Scheer stood up in front of parliament and told Canada that gays should have fewer rights than the rest of Canada. That they should not have the right to marry because of how they were born. Just like the KKK believe people of colour should have fewer rights because of how they were born.

If you think that standing up in front of parliament and declaring that a specific group should be denied rights is equal to wearing blackface to an aladdin party, your opinion is not shared by the voting majority. If you think that standing up in front of parliament and declaring that a specific group should be denied rights is equal to stating you are Roman Catholic or a Sikh, then your opinion is also not shared by the voting majority.

The fact is that there is no record of Trudeau or Singh adamantly opposing equal rights for all Canadians, let alone doing so deliberately on the public record as an MP in front of parliament.

A person should be vilified if they hold villainous beliefs. To me, believing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they were born gay is no different from believing black people shouldn't be allowed on public transportation because they were born black. I don't care whether someone learned these beliefs from a church or from a Klan meeting or from a book.

It is true that Canadians are allowed to have their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean they won't be judged for those beliefs on election day.

---

I had a response to your post but I lost it when I took to long to compose it as I am at work and I don't feel like trying to replicate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benjhind

Would you vote for a person who was openly a member of the KKK, but declared that there would be no government lynchings under their tenure? If it is just their personal beliefs, how could you hold that against them?

To the left, human rights are important. Scheer stood up in front of parliament and told Canada that gays should have fewer rights than the rest of Canada. That they should not have the right to marry because of how they were born. Just like the KKK believe people of colour should have fewer rights because of how they were born.

If you think that standing up in front of parliament and declaring that a specific group should be denied rights is equal to wearing blackface to an aladdin party, your opinion is not shared by the voting majority. If you think that standing up in front of parliament and declaring that a specific group should be denied rights is equal to stating you are Roman Catholic or a Sikh, then your opinion is also not shared by the voting majority.

The fact is that there is no record of Trudeau or Singh adamantly opposing equal rights for all Canadians, let alone doing so deliberately on the public record as an MP in front of parliament.

A person should be vilified if they hold villainous beliefs. To me, believing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they were born gay is no different from believing black people shouldn't be allowed on public transportation because they were born black. I don't care whether someone learned these beliefs from a church or from a Klan meeting or from a book.

It is true that Canadians are allowed to have their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean they won't be judged for those beliefs on election day.

---

And yet Trudope continues to allow refugees flood this country, pays for housing, living expenses, schooling, more benefits than the rest of us working. Giving non-residents more rights than the rest of us and many are antigay Muslim....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

And yet Trudope continues to allow refugees flood this country, pays for housing, living expenses, schooling, more benefits than the rest of us working. Giving non-residents more rights than the rest of us and many are antigay Muslim....

---

Non-residents do not have more rights than citizens. That is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

Non-residents do not have more rights than citizens. That is nonsense.

---

My apology, how about more financial and health benefits than residents. Last time I checked I pay for my own housing schooling living expenses, dental, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

My apology, how about more financial and health benefits than residents. Last time I checked I pay for my own housing schooling living expenses, dental, etc.

---

So you are envious of people who come to this country with nothing get somewhere to sleep at night and food in their stomachs and take care of basic needs until they get on their feet financially? Just how much money do you think refugees cost you? Remember I am talking refugees, not economic asylum seekers.

Compassion is a virtue not a vice. Helping refugees get on their feet and contributing to Canada fast is a better way to integrate them into our society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

So you are envious of people who come to this country with nothing get somewhere to sleep at night and food in their stomachs and take care of basic needs until they get on their feet financially? Just how much money do you think refugees cost you? Remember I am talking refugees, not economic asylum seekers.

Compassion is a virtue not a vice. Helping refugees get on their feet and contributing to Canada fast is a better way to integrate them into our society.

---

Last year alone in Toronto I believe the number was around 75 million. Just where do you think that money comes from, trees, or tax payers?...