Latte Drinkers for Harper
From Greg Staples, this information about a recent "profile" of Tory supporters:
Admittedly, I can't say I'm a full-fledged Harperite. I cringe in horror when he panders to the knuckle-draggers out there -- you know, the ones who pester the gays and the trollopy women. But of all our leaders, he's the best, and I bow to the greatness of his foreign policy objectives. Plus, the man is a cat-lover.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's political coalition is predominantly male,Well, I don't fit. I'm female. And I never -- and I mean NEVER, except during the stupid blackout of 2003, when it was the only place open -- frequent TimHo's. I love my St. Arbuck's, and firmly believe a day without a latte is a day without sunshine. I also believe there should be a city by-law mandating one St. Arbuck's per block. I occasionally watch the CBC -- usually as some sort of social experiment, or because there's a Canadian election and I'd like to know who my new leader is, or because I want to write about one of its shows (I am actually serious enough about my work that I think I should have watched a movie or show I'm writing about, believe it or not). I don't know who Don Cherry is. (Some sort of sports person?) Sports? Huh? Like, yoga or pilates? I do not fear a terrorist attack, but I believe one is inevitable, and would like us to be as prepared as we can be.
prefers a Tim Hortons double-double over a Starbucks latte, is less likely to
watch CBC than other Canadians, sees Don Cherry as a "national icon," watches
more sports and is more likely to fear a terrorist attack, according to a new
poll provided exclusively to CanWest News Service.
Admittedly, I can't say I'm a full-fledged Harperite. I cringe in horror when he panders to the knuckle-draggers out there -- you know, the ones who pester the gays and the trollopy women. But of all our leaders, he's the best, and I bow to the greatness of his foreign policy objectives. Plus, the man is a cat-lover.
Labels: Canadian politics, St. Arbucks
posted by rondi adamson @ 2:57 PM
26 Comments:
At 4/2/07 4:21 PM,
Steve said…
I must admit I do have a soft spot for Tim's Maple Swirl donuts. I watch Radio Canada much better than
English CBC (plus I don't have cable and for some reason cannot receive Anglo-CBC), plus CBC news always looks at a glass as 1/4 empty whereas I see it as 3/4 full. I have not buried my head in the sand about terrorism, I also don't like some of the right wing nutters in the Harper Government, but the left wing loonies in the NDP and in the Liberal parties, bug me even more, but I am stuck in Toronto land, where the voters would vote NDP or liberal if a monkey was running.
At 5/2/07 8:19 AM,
BaconEating AtheistJew said…
Harper and the PC's are the lesser of 3 evils (4 if you count the FLQ or whatever they call themselves today).
Outside of their homophobia and their whining about too much separation of church and state, the PC's aren't that bad a cult.
At 5/2/07 9:52 AM,
Michael said…
Call me an old fashioned secular humanist but I find it difficult supporting a person who goes to a church which states that "the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent and will be personal and visible." *http://cmalliance.ca/generalinformationc22.php). It's an explosive combination when you have western leaders like Harper and Bush (and perhaps Blair) waiting for the second coming of Christ and many Shiites leaders believing the second coming of the twelth Imam is imminent. That makes for an explosive foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East.
At 5/2/07 9:56 AM,
rondi said…
Except Harper, Bush and Blair don't want to kill people who don't agree with them.
At 5/2/07 10:16 AM,
Fergs said…
Also, most of the Shiite leaders you are referring to (especially those in Iran) believe that the only way to bring about the Mahdi is to eliminate all infidels (which is considered desirable). This belief was first penned by Ayatollah Khomeini, and is accepted as gospel by the Ayatollahs of Iran, and perhaps Iraq as well.
At 5/2/07 10:23 PM,
BaconEating AtheistJew said…
Michael, I have always said that anyone who thinks Jesus is coming back within 25 years shouldn't be allowed to run for office.
You never know when they are gonna have a bad day and look towards bringing the future to us.
But I also wonder if this is in the back of their minds when it comes to being in the middle east or making decisions about the middle east.
I have Baptist friends who would have nervous breakdowns if Israel moved to a friendlier Island and the USA pulled completely out of the middle east.
At 6/2/07 8:58 AM,
Brad said…
BEAJ: let's not say that not believing in gay marriage is homophobic shall we? It's not a case of thing or the other. (I'm not aware of Cons wanting to merge church and state. Are you serious?)
Michael: I'm not going to call you an "old fashioned secular humanist," but only because I don't know what it means. Implying that Harper and Bush have a full commitment to something on a church web-site is a bit much. It does enable you to compare them to Ahmedinejad but it's intellectually dishonest.
Both of you mental-gen are being more metaphorical than is useful or truthful.
At 6/2/07 10:44 AM,
Former Edmontonian said…
Call me a Second Cup Conservative.
Tim's dishwater is for sissies and Starbucks lost me when they switched to those awful automatic espresso machines just over a year ago.
Finally, a new Starbucks kiosk opened in a Safeway Store near my home in SE Edmonton. But every time I ordered an Americano, it was horribly weak. This continued from store to store until I moved to Ontario and realized that every store with an automatic espresso machines were consistently producing smaller / weaker espresso.
Now I only go to Second Cup, where I get good coffee, and I don't take sugar.
I don't care for CBC news, some shows are OK, they do well with sports and the odd Hockey Day in Canada program is gold. That is what a national broadcaster should be doing.
I don't know if Don Cherry is a national icon or not. He's just fun to watch, like a live Oilers game.
I am not at all afraid of a terror attack, although I was looking at buying a home around the corner from one of the mosques frequented by the 17 arrested in Ontario last year.
Come to think of it, I know very few Tory supporters who fit this profile. So you can profile Tory supporters as a group, but that does not apply to individuals, apparently.
But do they profile Liberal supporters? I somehow doubt it.
At 7/2/07 9:04 AM,
BaconEating AtheistJew said…
Brad, those against gay marriage are either homophobic and/or trying to get their biblical beliefs that homosexuality is wrong into government policy.
If the majority of PC voters had their way, there would be prayer in public school and before government meetings.
I also think that close to the majority would like to see evolution get thrown out science classes...I know that is true of the Repubs in the US
I got banned at Proud To Be Canadians because Joel didn't like my argument about gay marriage. Joel is a typical PC as far as I'm concerned.
That being said, it doesn't concern me, because we are a secular country, and the Joels of the country all wind up whining and whining and getting no where.
At 7/2/07 11:02 AM,
Steve said…
Most of the PC voters I know would not fit the profile that bacon eating guy gives, except some rural hicks in Alberta.This is just disinformation that the left likes to give out to demonize the opposition.
At 7/2/07 11:38 AM,
Thermblog said…
BEAJ: those against gay marriage are either homophobic and/or trying to get their biblical beliefs...
Wrong! There are other arguments against gay marriage that require neither of these positions. You seem bigoted on this issue. It's not like you to have an NDP mentality. (So stop it already.)
At 7/2/07 4:59 PM,
BaconEating AtheistJew said…
Steve, I vote PC, so I'm not trying to demonize the PCs, I'm only stating what I believe to be true. And it bothers me the MP in my riding is against gay marriage, and admits it is because of religious reasons.
I've been to many PC blogs and this is where I get my POV. Maybe I'm visiting the wrong ones.
Thermblog, if there is another reason to be against gay marriage, please enlighten me. BTW, I hate the NDP with a passion.
At 7/2/07 10:06 PM,
southfield_2001 said…
Harper has been entirely honest with the Canadian public about his agenda and his goals. Like you, I find the occasional pandering to the knuckle-draggers annoying but his foreign affairs and economic policies have more than made up for that. He has not destroyed our social system, had only a perfunctory debate on the issue of gay marriage and then made sure the motion lost and has been able to deal with all three opposition parties.
You're right that he's the best person for the job right now. You're right about cat lovers, too!
At 8/2/07 7:23 AM,
Steve said…
Many MP's are against abortion for religious reasons,
In this world there are two types, those who are really faithful and observant, which is the majority of Christians, Muslims and others, and there are those who use religion for purely polictical purposes and to gain power.
The problem in a secular society is maintaining the right balance between religious laws and secualar laws. Some have expanded their oppostion to gay marriage as a vendetta agains gays as whole others just do not like the concept and have a hard time connecting it to their faith.
At 8/2/07 9:07 AM,
Thermblog said…
Good comment Steve.
BEAJ: We do not know the possible future consequences of gay marriage to our civilisation. Our gay marriage laws were also preceded by several occurrences like gay-pride parades & Human Rights Council rulings that actually elevated the status of gays above that of hets.
Some people are just born that way and others aren't, but in between, there are people who can be swayed.
There are possible consequences to this, including diminished reproduction, already a problem for the west.
At high school, I was the one who preached tolerance and I still do. That's different from the active encouragement I see going on now.
When did gay-marriage become an issue for you?
At 8/2/07 10:19 AM,
rondi said…
Thermblog, I agree that there are reasons to be against gay marriage, apart from homophobia. But I don't agree that anyone chooses to be gay, and for me, that's the gist of the matter. (I mean, yes, there are women who hate men so much they attempt to be lesbians for a while, but then they come to the realization that as awful as men are, they still want to sleep with them!)
At 8/2/07 11:10 AM,
Thermblog said…
Rondi: I decided there can be a choice because:
a) prisons have a higher percentage
b) I've seen it become a fashion thing in some social groups and that was years ago when it was frowned on.
At 8/2/07 11:14 AM,
rondi said…
Thermblog, But I don't think the prison gays are really gay. I think it's convenience, desperation, etc. And the fashion thing is sort of what I was talking about in my previous comment. It's "fashionable," for whatever reason, but those people aren't gay. They're just posing, or experimenting, and eventually will go to a straight life. That's what I think, anyway.
At 8/2/07 11:26 AM,
Thermblog said…
Rondi: I could debate you on those points - not blogably though. How about kids becoming confused if they see no distinction between hom. & het? In a neutral world they will be targeted more easily.
At 8/2/07 12:55 PM,
rondi said…
Well, but I don't see it as no distinction between gay and straight. Obviously, they are different orientations. I see it as no distinctions between committed couples.
What I do think, though, is that we will need time to adjust. And that's something activists don't seem to want to allow for. I mean, I look at my teenage nieces and nephews, who are completely at ease with the idea of gay marriage. At their age, I did not have those attitudes -- it was barely discussed.
At 8/2/07 1:07 PM,
Thermblog said…
Too big a discussion without writing screeds - and too easy to be misinterpreted.
I asked BEAJ when this became an issue because I feel the Libs thrust it on the public for purely political purposes. This after saying in 1998 (I think) that it would NEVER happen.
At 8/2/07 1:45 PM,
Steve said…
Problem is on this issue and every other issue it seems the extremists on both sides take over the agenda.
I think some sort of same-sex partner thing would have solved the problem as the debate was mostly about pensions and inheritance.
At 8/2/07 4:04 PM,
Alan said…
People talk about "gay marriage" as if it were an official institution, mandated by law. There is no Gay Marriage Act. There is a Civil Marriage Act that is worded in such a way as not to preclude two persons of the same sex from entering into a relationship that can from a purely legal standpoint be considered a marriage. That's all. There is no net effect on the institution of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. It remains a separate and living entity as long as it has proponents. I see no reason to assail a homosexual who chooses to enter into a particular legal relationship. It has nothing to do with traditional marriage. I also see no reason to abuse or label anyone who adheres to ancient tradition by regarding the life-bond between a man and a woman as something special and unique and valuable.
At 8/2/07 9:27 PM,
BaconEating AtheistJew said…
This became an issue when I saw people debating it and whining about it.
I believe most gays are gay at birth. Scientific studies are coming close to conclude that something happens to the fetus during development that causes "gayness."
Because it happens to 5-10% of the population, I look at it as normal. If you say it is not normal, then ban left handed or red headed people from getting married too.
The idea of marriage isn't a big deal. In fact Christian Baptists have the highest divorce rate than anyone....you could say they make a sham of the "institution"
The idea of gay people getting married doesn't change my life at all. Not one bit. It isn't any of my business, or anyones to try to stop it.
Thermblog, you bring up reproduction. Do you think by trying to make someone they are not is wise. Lots of gays get married and then divorced to go with their preferred sex. I think it is a shame for people to hide who they are.
As far as gay parades go, they do it because there are still issues with the religious right for example.
Treat them like normal human beings without prejudice,and you'll an end to gay parades or at least a tremendous diminishment of gay activism.
I'm not convinced there are very many people "in the middle," you'd have to prove that.
I know there are hundred of higher animal species where at least some practise homosexual....this proves that it is hardwired in some.
At 9/2/07 7:59 PM,
Thermblog said…
BEAJ
With all respect and sincerity, I found your reply to be clichéd; you use the talking points we have all been fed but they have little substance, in my view
The phrase The idea of gay people getting married doesn't change my life at all. Not one bit
summarises the problem. It isn’t about you, or me, but about the legacy we leave those that follow us. Nearly every pro-gay-marriage advocate has uttered this banality.
I'm not convinced there are very many people "in the middle," you'd have to prove that.
Well I already demonstrated there are some. You are the one that wants to change an order that has provided stability for centuries. If there’s proving to be done, you should prove that there aren’t. (I know you can’t do that but I also know if there are some then with the appropriate manipulation and conditioning, there could be many. Mathematical induction and all that. Rondi, this responds to your comment too.)
As far as gay parades go, they do it because there are still issues with the religious right for example.
Is that a valid reason for illegal and offensive displays? NO!
At 11/2/07 4:59 PM,
BaconEating AtheistJew said…
The phrase The idea of gay people getting married doesn't change my life at all. Not one bit
summarises the problem. It isn’t about you, or me, but about the legacy we leave those that follow us. Nearly every pro-gay-marriage advocate has uttered this banality.
********************************
What exactly is your debate against this other than you think it is banality?
Well I already demonstrated there are some.
*********************
They are definitely the minority, and really you haven't demonstrated that any have. Prison homosexuality is not considered to be homosexuality and has nothing to do gay marriages regardless. I'm assuming that some people are confused out there though. It is up to you to prove that there are more homosexuals that can be "cured" if you don't legalize gay marriage. Bisexuals have been around since at least the Greeks. Did guys get married to each other back then?
Is that a valid reason for illegal and offensive displays? NO!
*********************
Anyone who breaks the laws should be arrested. The gay parades I saw in downtown Toronto when I lived downtown, were not offensive to me, and I'm not sure what laws they broke.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home