The Conservative Reform Party thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, that “the facts don’t count” and that the Liberals want to get rid of procreation.
Heh, Rick Mercer rocks:
I found a site that mentions something about Stockwell Day mentioning that the earth is 6000 years old but he is not quoted. Any anti-Conservative could make up something like that. Do you have a specific quote that you got your info from?? I haven’t been able to see your video clip yet…maybe that has what I’m looking for.
Stockwell Day said it when he visited Drumheller, Alberta during his failed campaign. He basically said that he didn’t believe in dinosaurs, 'cause they weren’t mentioned in the bible, and that besides, the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Now you gotta ask yourself if the Conservative Party is really the Progressive Conservative party, or just all the bible-thumping Reformers who have taken over the PC party? Why aren’t prominent PCs in the party any more? What happened to Joe Clark and those like him? I guess they believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old?
This has been a great campaign by the Reform party – they’ve basically been able to convince people they aren’t right-wing fundamentalist “Christians” when that’s exactly what they are.
Good clips!!! The first guy is a nut job although I understand his point. He seems like the evangelical type, asking for handouts right off the bat.
Mercers funny…that was hilarious.
The first guy is a Conservative Reform Candidate.
Also,
[quote]Gordon Laird wrote the following quote from Stockwell Day: “As a Christian, I acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ over the whole universe,” explained Day in 1998, in response to a gaffe made against single-parent families. “I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God and every word in it, cover to cover, is true.” With this literalist belief in the Bible comes some unusual ideas that rarely gather press. As one educator made notes in an informal presentation Day made in Red Deer during 1997, the Treasurer claimed the following things to be true:
-
The earth is 6,000 years old
-
Adam and Eve were real people
-
Humans and dinosaurs co-existed; and
-
There’s as much evidence for creation as evolution.
There goes every scientific discovery known to the world and Newton should not have been sitting under an apple tree! Stockwell Day has not discovered that there are over 5 Billion people on our humble little planet that do not believe in his lordship. Now if you do not believe in these Four Principles of Stockwell Day, then I will join you as the Alliance (born again Reform) Party, gets prepared to move us off the planet or move us to Hitler style re-location centres for extermination.[/quote]
Found that on some site. I thought it was pretty well established that the Conservative Reform party was a fundamentalist “Christian” party. Don’t confuse it with the Progressive Conservative party.
Let’s not forget that Mike Scott followed and supported Stockwell Day.
Ah poo, sorry about the Godwin quote there.
Every group has a few nut jobs. Just look at the scandal hitting each party. If Stockwell Day really did say that then that is just crazy and idiotic. There’s a reason that he didn’t lead the party for long.
Many of the old PC’s, including Clark, did not support the merger of the two parties. Many did re-align themselves with the new party. There are still a few, as you say, Bible-thumping Reformers in there but I think that most of their views are extreme and not really reflective of those of the party as a whole. Stepher Harper did say that he would not vote in favour of changing the definition of marriage as it now is but would allow a free vote in Parliament to decide it. Seems to me that this is a guy who is being true to his values but still sees that their is a progression in society and will not impose his views as I’m sure some of his extremist party members would like. Kinda like your pal in the video clip.
I was speaking with a good friend this morning who really knows his stuff when it comes to Governments, he was saying the same thing re bible thumpers and their hidden agenda with the Conservatives/reforms. now if we really wanted some form of American Government,would we not move there? If they let some of us in. Yes they people must keep their heads up on this one
My best-friend’s sister’s, boyfriend’s, mother’s friend’s husband knows his stuff too when it comes to governments. He said not to worry and just vote Conservative. 
I’m not sure it’s a case of “a few nutjobs.” You are right that there are a few nutjobs in every party, but usually, the party leader doesn’t sign their nomination papers, or the nutjobs are asked to leave.
The fact that Harper signed that nutjob’s paper, that Harper supports him, is a reflection of Harper.
Now, my understanding is that the local Conservative candidate is in favor of having people armed to defend themselves from the government. If that is the case, then again, Harper must also share the local nutjob’s views, because Harper signed his papers. I think that anybody who speaks like the local Conservative nutjob does about guns is seriously paranoid and needs to join the Michigan Militia. He seems to share their point of view about a number of things.
A few bad eggs don’t spoil the whole Party. Unless you’re a Tory talking about Liberals.
Each party is guilty of trying to do whatever it can to make the other look bad and to make it’s own look good. It’s too bad that so much emphasis is put on negativity but I guess that it’s the name of the game.
.
With 308 ridings there is no way that every single person will have the exact same views as the party leader. Thats a good thing though because I for one do not want a bunch of clones running the country. Different views and perspectives are essential. Besides, I believe that a candidate is nominated and elected to run by the party faithful is his own riding. Unless they are a criminal or are guilty of something detrimental to the party then they can run under that party’s banner with the party leaders blessing of course. So some nutjob like the fellow in MiG’s video may live in a bible belt and his views may represent those of his constituents. Doesn’t necessarily mean that Harper shares the exact same thoughts, nor does it mean that Mike Scott or any other Conservative shares those exact thoughts.
**Controversial Liberal attack ad spawns series of spoofs **
12/01/2006 6:57:00 PM
OTTAWA (CP) - Is Stephen Harper an evil galactic warlord? Is he a Bible-thumping Bush backer? We don’t know. He won’t say. And by the way, we are definitely making this up.
MARTIN O?HANLON
Not everyone is fuming over a controversial Liberal ad that warns Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would put troops in city streets - a lot of people find it quite amusing.
It has already spawned a series of spoofs by everyone from Internet bloggers to Tory insiders.
Conservative MPs were frothing at the mouth Wednesday when the ad was released, claiming it insults Canada’s troops by suggesting they pose a threat to democracy. But behind the scenes, things were decidedly less serious.
Within hours of the release, this mock copy was making the rounds in Tory circles:
“Stephen Harper has a dog. You know who else had a dog? Hitler. Adolf Hitler. That’s who. Did Stephen Harper train his dog to attack racial minorities on command? We don’t know. He’s not saying. Choose your Canada.”
The original ad, which Liberals say was pulled before it ever ran on television, opens with the sound of a military drumbeat and Harper’s blurred face in the background.
As the face comes slowly into focus, a voice warns ominously:
“Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada.”
The daily news magazine Dose wasted no time tickling readers’ funny bones. It published several takeoffs in Thursday’s edition, including this lighthearted gem:
“Stephen Harper likes to wear black. You know who else liked black? Darth Vader? We’re not making this up.”
It was a veritable comedy field day on the Internet. Check out this offering from the weblog of Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells:
“Just now at the Subway on Bank Street, I was buying my lunch and there . . . in line . . . standing in front of me . . . was a soldier. In our cities. In Canada. A soldier. He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey. With chipotle sauce. In Canada. We’re not making this stuff up.”
And here’s another laugh-out-loud version being circulated among Conservatives:
“Stephen Harper wears glasses. For reading. You know what he reads? The Bible. You know who else reads the Bible? George Bush. Will Stephen Harper turn Canada into a Christian theocracy? We don’t know. He isn’t saying. Choose your Canada.”
Of course, some people can be forgiven for refusing to acknowledge the humour of the situation - especially Liberal MP Keith Martin.
Martin’s riding includes CFB Esquimalt, headquarters of Canada’s Pacific naval fleet, and he doesn’t want to offend the military - it could cost him his job.
He blamed an “idiot” in the party for allowing the release of the original ad. He called it “appalling” and apologized to members of the military who were offended.
Prime Minister Paul Martin said the ad was not meant to target soldiers.
“I support our military,” he said. “I’ve probably put more money into the military than almost any prime minister . . . (The ads have) nothing to do with soldiers.”
Just wondering, but what point do you understand? There was a lot that he said, but for the life of me I don’t “understand” any of it.
[quote=“Illywhacker”]
Just wondering, but what point do you understand? There was a lot that he said, but for the life of me I don’t “understand” any of it.[/quote]
That if everone was allowed to get married to a same sex partner then therte would be no procreation. Just said that I understand it, not that I necessarily agree with it.
[quote=“fingahz”]
Just wondering, but what point do you understand? There was a lot that he said, but for the life of me I don’t “understand” any of it.
That if everone was allowed to get married to a same sex partner then therte would be no procreation. Just said that I understand it, not that I necessarily agree with it.[/quote]
Uhmm, thats a pretty retarded argument normally yours are half decent. I dont know about you but I dont screw guys.
It’s got nothing to do with being allowed, not everyone is attracted to people of the same sex so your argument is worthless it just wouldnt happen.
Let them stick it in whatever bodily orifice they want it’s not going to affect your life.
That’s what I don’t understand. How can allowing one gay person to marry another prevent straight couples from procreating? And since when was the only purpose of marriage procreation? I kind of always thought love and a commitment to one another played a big part in it.
Gawdamm! If the earth’s only 6000 years old we don’t need all those history teachers! PBS, scientists, natives are all liars. And the chinese, thank god they instituted the one child policy. To go from 0 to 1.5 billion in 6000 years they must’ve been having kids in litters!
Herbie, you know that you do have it wrong or I hope that you are joking about it , The Reforms (Conservatives) are the ones with the lies , will continue to produce these lies as long as we allow them Neo-cons to plague our Canadian soil. That Blue book which Harper held up high for wannabe neo-con supporters to see, will soon know how to say the word BUSH BABYS.