Wynne wasting more time and money on ridiculous things.... | GTAMotorcycle.com

Wynne wasting more time and money on ridiculous things....

You're complaining about a legal definition bill being tabled? The cost is negligible, and would bring Ontario in line with British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec. I don't see the point of complaining about a bill to update rights when she's spending money like a drunken sailor on other non essentials like the in vitro fertilization program ($50M).
 
FullMotoJacket said:
You're complaining about a legal definition bill being tabled? The cost is negligible, and would bring Ontario in line with British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec. I don't see the point of complaining about a bill to update rights when she's spending money like a drunken sailor on other non essentials like the in vitro fertilization program ($50M).
Click to expand...

Somebody has to complain about all progressive nuttiness, regardless of how little the cost or time.

This is just another example of creating a problem so that they can create new laws to "solve" them.

And maybe somebody can clear up for me just why the LGBTWRSTUVWXYZ crew has a problem with adopting children they didn't conceive or give birth to? How do they plan to "get" children they don't give birth to? Can they just claim anybody's child (just like they choose their gender fluid identity?)?
 
Snobike Mike said:
Somebody has to complain about all progressive nuttiness, regardless of how little the cost or time.

This is just another example of creating a problem so that they can create new laws to "solve" them.

And maybe somebody can clear up for me just why the LGBTWRSTUVWXYZ crew has a problem with adopting children they didn't conceive or give birth to? How do they plan to "get" children they don't give birth to? Can they just claim anybody's child (just like they choose their gender fluid identity?)?
Click to expand...

c14.jpg
 
Snobike Mike said:
Could you answer my questions tho? How does one "get" children if they don't adopt? (aside from the normal hetero way which of course doesn't apply to this special interest group....)
Click to expand...

I think they did answer your question....

In case you STILL don't get it.... In vitro fertilisation.

Now if you want something to get in an uproar about: 30% of the voters at the conservative convention voted for bigotry (voted to keep opposing gay marriage as a party policy), holy crap the 1950s are long over, in 2016 that is just crazy! Luckily roughly 70% are not (or is it no longer) bigots
 
FullMotoJacket said:
You're complaining about a legal definition bill being tabled? The cost is negligible, and would bring Ontario in line with British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec. I don't see the point of complaining about a bill to update rights when she's spending money like a drunken sailor on other non essentials like the in vitro fertilization program ($50M).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, as a lifetime sailor, ISAF cat3 professional , and often drunk, at the same time, I take exception to being catagorized with that idiot Wynn.
 
Snobike Mike said:
Somebody has to complain about all progressive nuttiness, regardless of how little the cost or time.
Click to expand...

Just like someone has to always complain about progress in social rights and equality.

Fear not though. I'm sure there is a place for you in some repressive country where basic human rights are considered somewhat less than important. Maybe Saudi Arabia?
 
backmarkerducati said:
I think they did answer your question....

In case you STILL don't get it.... In vitro fertilisation.
Click to expand...

So the LGBT crew gets invitro fertilization and they have to adopt after they give birth to said child? I find that hard to believe. I think this new "law" is to somehow avoid the adoption process of children that aren't birthed by the subject families.

backmarkerducati said:
Now if you want something to get in an uproar about: 30% of the voters at the conservative convention voted for bigotry (voted to keep opposing gay marriage as a party policy), holy crap the 1950s are long over, in 2016 that is just crazy! Luckily roughly 70% are not (or is it no longer) bigots
Click to expand...

Good for them, I applaud them. Someone has to stand against the progressive nuttiness.

PS, calling someone a bigot because they don't agree with your opinions is........bigotry. ;)

PPS, the most intolerant groups there are around are the progressive special interest groups who want to smash their agenda's into the majorities faces.
 
griff2 said:
Just like someone has to always complain about progress in social rights and equality.
Click to expand...

You should pay closer attention, the LGBTxxxxx groups don't want equality they want control. ;)

griff2 said:
Fear not though. I'm sure there is a place for you in some repressive country where basic human rights are considered somewhat less than important. Maybe Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

How am I repressing anybody? It seems that you're the one wanting to do the repressing.....
 
backmarkerducati said:
I think they did answer your question....

In case you STILL don't get it.... In vitro fertilisation.

Now if you want something to get in an uproar about: 30% of the voters at the conservative convention voted for bigotry (voted to keep opposing gay marriage as a party policy), holy crap the 1950s are long over, in 2016 that is just crazy! Luckily roughly 70% are not (or is it no longer) bigots
Click to expand...

Gah! Whatever happened to the "Progressive" Conservatives? They will never get my vote again while they emulate the Republicans and go full nutjob. What happened to the Liberals? They used to be left of centre and under Wynne they seem left of the NDP! Who the heck are we supposed to vote for? Horvath and the NDP are just as left and tax and spend as the Wynne Liberals. The Conservatives are way too far right and in the 1950s to get my vote. Gah! :(
 
I'm not sure the Conservs are so far right, I think the Libs have gone so left to the point of being further offside than the NDP the Cons just look way right. They are probably close to a middle. The damn lines are all blurry and messed up.

As a Conservative I'll take responsibility for Wynn driving the bus. We aren't putting forward a quality candidate. If we give you an alternative we could get a vote.
 
crankcall said:
As a Conservative I'll take responsibility for Wynn driving the bus. We aren't putting forward a quality candidate. If we give you an alternative we could get a vote.
Click to expand...

If only every serious conservative shared your view .... people still keep bitching, but what did they expect, to give a vote to a very bad candidate with a suicidal plan?

I hope that next time around I will actually have a good choice. Not sure whether the new leader though is really any better ... He's technically invisible to me. I guess he "lives" in the rural areas who really got him the job?
 
The new boss is much like the old boss.
Hopefully this guy wont pull a stupid like announcing getting rid of 100,000 civil servants, apparently missing the part where in one fashion or another 1/3 rd of the the population is tied to a gov't related / dependent job or union.

Never swing for the fences if you don't know a slider from a knuckle ball.
 
Snobike Mike said:
So the LGBT crew gets invitro fertilization and they have to adopt after they give birth to said child? I find that hard to believe. I think this new "law" is to somehow avoid the adoption process of children that aren't birthed by the subject families.



Good for them, I applaud them. Someone has to stand against the progressive nuttiness.

PS, calling someone a bigot because they don't agree with your opinions is........bigotry. ;)

PPS, the most intolerant groups there are around are the progressive special interest groups who want to smash their agenda's into the majorities faces.
Click to expand...

Hey if I am a bigot because I think everyone is equal and should have equal rights and I feel sorry for and pity for the other different type of bigots that don't--bigots that want to keep oppressing a segment of the population, I will wear that label with pride (hey it is pride month). Also, if equal is progressive nuttiness maybe the conservatives need to put progressive back in their name and policies. Hey progressive nutters once wanted the vote for women, they once wanted to free slaves....damn nutters.

Why oppose this, because their imaginary friend says to oppose certain people, or are the old white men afraid they might "catch the gay" (or be outed)?
 
backmarkerducati said:
Hey if I am a bigot because I think everyone is equal and should have equal rights and I feel sorry for and pity for the other different type of bigots that don't--bigots that want to keep oppressing a segment of the population, I will wear that label with pride (hey it is pride month). Also, if equal is progressive nuttiness maybe the conservatives need to put progressive back in their name and policies. Hey progressive nutters once wanted the vote for women, they once wanted to free slaves....damn nutters.

Why oppose this, because their imaginary friend says to oppose certain people, or are the old white men afraid they might "catch the gay" (or be outed)?
Click to expand...

But you see, that's the thing about being part of the tolerant gestapo, you actually need to be tolerant of people that don't agree with you, otherwise you're nothing more than a hypocrite. ;)

An no, changing the meaning of words, pandering to the extreme minority, allowing said minority to bully anybody who doesn't drink their koolaid, ignoring science and on and on isn't making them "equal". They, whom you support, don't want equality, they want control, and I oppose that.
 
God dang politics is always a flash point for people. We have been sucked into the political notion that if you are liberal, you are a socialist and if you are conservative, you are a trump loving, god fearing, right wing nut.

Any other party can't win support enough to win a controlling interest and the runner ups end up fringe at best.

Laws to reflect established social norms are fine by me. I remember growing up and thinking it was "weird" to see a white girl with a black guy. That stuff was just "out there".

Times change and the laws should reflect that.

Government waste? Spending in the wrong places? Doesn't seem to grab the attention it deserves. Not sure if it because the young voters that are leaning liberal or NDP, haven't left home and supported themselves and see how much tax they pay or end up needing any health care to really feel the financial issues facing older citizens or the bouncing around from doctor to doctor for evaluations and tests that take months or years and end up making patients severely ill and more expensive to treat. Or die and save the system some more.

Or the wonderful education system or public service systems we have with big unionized populations that want more income and benefits but, want to tax the rich but, not that rich. You know, those rich SOBs that run businesses and employee people and came from nothing and worked their butts off and know what it's like to be poor and willing to build a company, employ others and contribute to the economy.

Let's clean up the air, lets tax and spend, let's charge more for everything because it doesn't matter how bad of a job we do, we get voted back in. Yup! And we think politicians are stupid? They know exactly what they are doing and doing it very well.
 
Snobike Mike said:
PS, calling someone a bigot because they don't agree with your opinions is........bigotry. ;)
Click to expand...
That's an interesting assertion. It means that anybody who calls someone a bigot is a hypocrite, since it's a manifestation of their own bigotry. Unless they happen to agree with the bigot, meaning they're also bigots. Which therefore makes them hypocrites for criticizing someone for sharing the same views as themselves... Wait, what? Nobody can call anybody a bigot without being a hypocrite!

Or, there's a better interpretation of the meaning if the word bigot than you offered.

"[COLOR=#C2C2C2 !important][FONT=DDG_ProximaNova]Bigotry[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=DDG_ProximaNova] definition, stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"[/FONT]

Stubborn and complete intolerance is key. Gay marriage has been the law of the land for a decade now. There's nothing contentious about it any more, except for those hardliners who think it somehow degrades their own marriage or society somehow. There's no rationale, just stubborn and complete intolerance.

There's nothing intolerant about pointing that out. Never mind "stubborn and complete". No one's trying to prevent them from being anti-gay, nor fighting to remove their ability to hold such bigoted opinions. They can rejoice in their bigotry for everyone to see, for all we care. But that's what it is. Bigotry.
 
fastar1 said:
That's an interesting assertion. It means that anybody who calls someone a bigot is a hypocrite, since it's a manifestation of their own bigotry. Unless they happen to agree with the bigot, meaning they're also bigots. Which therefore makes them hypocrites for criticizing someone for sharing the same views as themselves... Wait, what? Nobody can call anybody a bigot without being a hypocrite!

Or, there's a better interpretation of the meaning if the word bigot than you offered.

"[COLOR=#C2C2C2 !important][FONT=DDG_ProximaNova]Bigotry[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=DDG_ProximaNova] definition, stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"[/FONT]

Stubborn and complete intolerance is key. Gay marriage has been the law of the land for a decade now. There's nothing contentious about it any more, except for those hardliners who think it somehow degrades their own marriage or society somehow. There's no rationale, just stubborn and complete intolerance.

There's nothing intolerant about pointing that out. Never mind "stubborn and complete". No one's trying to prevent them from being anti-gay, nor fighting to remove their ability to hold such bigoted opinions. They can rejoice in their bigotry for everyone to see, for all we care. But that's what it is. Bigotry.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the self-defeating irony of the "tolerance" bigotry argument. If one is truly tolerant they would welcome and accept dissension, but they aren't just "pointing it out". The gay movement has stubborn and complete intolerance of anybody that not only doesn't accept their lifestyle and law changing demands, and there is a strong undertone of needing to actively support their gay lifestyle to "prove" we're okay with their choices.

You are making an assertion that the gay rights movement is correct. Why is the gay movement infallibly correct and therefore not subjected to your posted definition of bigotry, but the anti-gay marriage/ gender fluid group is? Who is the arbiter of that?

And as you've noted, since gay marriage has been the law of the land for a decade, this lends further credence to my noting that they don't want equality but ultimately suppressive control. On the surface said special interest group at times will say all they want is to be equal and to be left alone. Well, they got their perverse gay marriage law, but they didn't stop there. We see continue changes or attempted changes to other laws such Justins latest gender fluid bills, Wynne's adoption law changes, Sex-Ed curriculum (glad to see Wynne is getting grief from a lot of parents on that one) etc.

There is no logical reason why 1.2% of the countries population should be given the grossly disproportionate amount of political or social "air time" they get. It's a political and control agenda and they will never stop. They are methodically advancing their agenda until people like me who oppose their agenda can and will be sanctioned severely.

And that's the thing about the "tolerant left", they are just as, or more intolerant than the "bigots" they label.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom