So long as Canadians are unwilling to move in large numbers from one allegedly progressive electoral option to another it is inevitable that we swing Conservatively now and again. That is Canadian history. The same thing happens in B.C. where the Marxist strategy of convincing the working class to back only one progressive option is every bit as ingrained.

Canada has a Redneck streak in it that needs expressing now and again. We do not have to look forward to it but we sure should not expect our media to be looking under every bed for a Redneck. They have been out from under the bed for a good long time.

Yes, Mr. Beer N. Hockey, Canada has swung back and forth in the past, with relatively little difference between the two "ruling" parties, just like the United States did for years. However, should Harper and his Reform/Alliance conservatives win a majority, we are likely to see them take dramatic action, just like the Bush administration did in the U.S. Their motto will be 'change lots and change it fast' so people get over it before the next election. People will be left gasping and wailing "... but they didn't say they were going to do that during the election campaign! If I'd known that, I wouldn't have voted to punish the Liberals."
Voting to punish the Liberals will only punish Canada and Canadians. Please, think very hard before you vote. If we take knee-jerk (somebody, anybody else) action, we'll live with drastic consequences. There's a reason we're not hearing anything on the airwaves from Conservative candidates, they are being very quiet, very careful not to scare the voters.

By the way, if people think the C's will be more open and honest than the Liberals, have they forgotten how their Deputy, Peter McKay defrauded the Progressive Conservative party members and other leadership candidates by tearing up a legal agreement he signed saying he would not merge with the Reform/Alliance. Just days later, he did exactly what he'd agreed he would not (and he's a lawyer, so he knows what he did was not legal). Yah, so much for honesty and integrity eh, when they stole a long-standing political party out from under the noses of its members and leaders!!! (I know, I used to be a member of the PC party, and if you want to know, sometime I could tell you how about the bullying and lying by the Reform/Alliance people, even at the local riding level -- misleading seniors at the meeting to vote on the merger, trying to prevent people from the opposite side from observing the vote count, ...). Don't say no one warned you.

This time, the devil we know is definitely better than the devil we don't -- but I'd like the L's to come back with a very, very slim majority, with a strengthened ND party to hold the Quebec and Alberta separatists in check.

The above poll shows that the Conservatives will be in a minority position, that's good. No party will be extreme in a minority government and if this is the second minority, there will be little taste for another election until 3 years have past.

Still the Liberals are crooks; the NDP are inept, and the Conservatives an unkown quanity. I'm still voting Green!

Tom Barrett:
Excellent article! Its about time journalists started doing their job by naming the names of controversial candidates, and Tom, you've done it. Other than the ridings that they run in needing to be posted (a good minority of voters don't even know the names of these individuals until election day), Thanks again.

To the rest:
Unlike what some posts will say, the majority of voters still don't realize what most of these names have said in the past, due to the dilution of more recent information, and the memory banks of the day. Most of us are too busy with life to remember someones, should have been career ending hoof in mouth, 2 years ago.
The crime question being 33% of everyones concern with polls up top, suggest this phenomina as being very real. The issue of sustaining the economy is only 10%? It should be everyone's concern and highest priority, as this is what pays for the social programs we need in this country.

And, even though some voters are in favor of church and state, the majority are against it.

If the Conservatives ever do release who their major money contributers are, (and to the publics knowledge, they have a small, partial, dated list, a direct lie from Steven Harper, anyone try to prove this wrong) the public shouldn't be surprised to find the Christian right as big contributors.

The saddest part of this whole same sex marriage debate, is that it comes down to individual rights, as the charter along with the courts, have been sworn to protect.

It is easy to say that the majority of those who are eligable to marry, support marriage between a man and a woman, as the majority of the population are heterosexual. At the same time, the majority of the population does not support gay bashing and to complicate matters, since the charter protects the rights of "individuals" to marry, the charter's interpretation needs to be respected (along with appeals) under the rule of law.

While many religions throughout the world believe (as I do) that homosexuality is an immoral act as a result of it not being Gods will, true love does sometimes develop between these relationships. In other words, it starts out as a product of fantasy, but very real feelings of love devolop between certain couples over time.

The questions that need to be asked with this is... what is real, and what is a phisod? What should be banned, and what should be tolerated? Who is it hurting, and who is it helping? Hasn't anyone heard of the expression, "natures cull?" Logic should dictate the reason for its abscence in Gods laws written in stone.

I'm with Trudeau on this one. "Unless its against an individual's consent, what people do in their own bedrooms is their own business, certainly not the business of the government of Canada." In the same breath, what people do in their living rooms, and public domain is everyone's business and having said this, the large question is about the tolerance to free will itself.

Did you see those Liberal attack ads?

I saw the one about the military in the cities, absolutely insulting to every Veteran, soldier and their families, guess if you are a Canadian soldier you not wanted by this government. I going to my MP’s office today and give them a good tongue lashing for that one. The Liberal party leaders are real pond scum. I almost feel sorry for some of their candidates, must be hard to sleep at night.

Good posts Sunny, I am tired of the MSM focusing on polls and having this simple black and white campaign, their is a reason Paul Martin talked about removing the notwithstanding Claus, he was fishing out the kooks in the conservatives (notice the word progressive is missing) unfortunately
no one has bitten yet. This party is full of them as noted above in the article, 7 potential MP's are former Focus on the Family members , you know that fundamentalist group that helped get the vote out for BUSH, people like this are very dangerous to the political landscape and the media is just giving Harper a easy ride. I am not saying vote Liberal but I am saying like Sunny, changing from
COKE to PEPSI will not change a dam thing but the fact is we have not seen the kooks who work
for Pepsi yet, get ready. Vic Toews (see my post on Joyce Murray) was in the US making speeches only last Nov 2005 talking about activist judges and using the notwithstanding Claus on a regular basis to stop the "perversion " of our legal system. And I wish everyone would put away the crystal balls and start getting busy and stop talking about minority gov etc, don't you see this will only drive down voter turnout,the religious Jesus Freaks will line up at the polls to put down gays etc but not worry about homelessness
war or social justice but please start thinking about a majority conservative gov and the damage they could do.

And Grumpy I agree with you on some issues but your dead wrong on the Green Party.
I quote you

Still the Liberals are crooks; the NDP are inept, and the Conservatives an unknown quantity. I'm still voting Green!

I am sorry but the NDP accomplished things in the house with the fewest seats, I don't call that inept, Go ahead and vote Green , throw away your vote, who not just donate 1.75 to them and vote for a real party. The Greens are a right wing party with no credibility and no chance, your like the folks in BC that hate Gordo but help him get elected time and time again, why can't the Greens merge with the NDP, I guess their just to arrogant.

of course it was only a matter of time before the tyee, that bastion of objective reporting, joined in the attack of the desperate ones. not going to work this time guys. even canadians are not completely stupid.

The NDP are inept, sorry, but they are. There is no new blood, just the same old tired 'road warriors' of the past. Hell I used to vote for the NDP, but they were no longer the party for me. The reform party became the party of protest as the NDP morphed into a 'special interest' party.

But the Reform are gone and now the Greens are the party of protest!

If the NDP want to get more than 20 to 25 seats, they must represent Canadaians, not the flavour of the month!

I know die hard NDP types nash their collective teeth at change, but if the party is to be relevant, it must reflect Canada and at this point in time it doesn't.

Do not blame the Greens for the NDP failings!

To the religious wingnuts, zealots and flakes (and only to the religious wingnuts, zealots and flakes):

God has, in every way, in every valid belief, told his sons and daughters to respect FREE WILL. We ask how God allows this or that... its called free will, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, God has no double standards. God doesn't want puppets or zombies. In the same breath, God doesn't want control freaks or people with a superiority/inferiority complex on anything, whether it is of race, creed, color, gender, age, sex, natural form, monetary background, even other life forms... because these complexs are based on something that isn't real!

These complex's are phisod's, and as such, its exactly how I percieve the Christian right. Controlling. "Our way is the only way, and the bible is perfect and this give us the moral right to set and enforce the moral compass for the rest of the world" and you know the rest of this cult crap.

Christians who practice sanctions (judgements with punnishment) that go contrary to human and life rights, especially in cases where there are no third party victims, are directly opposing Gods will, in fact... Gods first commandment... for sanctioning judgement comes with a price and that price is one of having double standards and playing God.

In any Christian religion of merit, true Christians have the right to reserve the right of judgement in terms of reward, but not sanction, unless there are victims with choices forced on them.

In other words, people who willingly choose to freely victimize themselves with their own immoral behavior, are free to do so, as long as it doesn't come at another person's expense.

Sanction is the the department of God and God's spoken loudly with his ten commandments, never mind the words of the prophets, prophettess's and apostles, (of which some have been changed or omitted to suit a goverment or institutionalized religions, agenda).
We will know these cult leaders by their double standards. Some of you had really better think hard about who you are supporting in this election.

And Stuart: You dont see a merger someday between the greens and NDP with your own crystal ball? Put it on a longer timeline. I'm with you all, especially Sunny. Anyone but the Cons.

I think that it is wonderful that the Conservatives have managed to come up with such a stellar intellectual as Stockwell Day for foreign affairs. Canada never did have much of a foreign policy: ask any Canadian citizen accused, falsely or otherwise, of a crime in say - off the top of my head - Saudi Arabia.

Good ol' Stock will change all that - a few roundhouse kicks to the Saudi ambassador, and who knows what will happen! Of course, he may confuse them with say the Kuwaitiis, (they all look alike in them there robes, eh?) but that surely wouldn't bother his supporters...

Joking aside, somehow this reminds me of Joe Clark ... how long did he last once people actually saw his policies in government?

As for B.C., in any riding where the NDP ran first or second, any vote for ANYONE else is a vote for Harper and the wingnuts. And I'm sure he'll thank you for it.

R. Smiley

Elliot phone homeAre you talking about objective reporting like we get from CanWest Elliot, like the Province newspaper commissioning its own poll, what does it say about the Tyee Elliott when they post your comments Maybe you could explain to me what media source allows this kind of criticism, I tried to post comments in the sound off section of the Sun and nothing, I emailed the administrator and he said bluntly that he
didn't like the way I was taking the conversation. That's democracy , The tyee allows open debate and has writers that are both liberal and conservative, get used to it or get lost. Theirs lots of media in town
that will not challenge or upset you. Media democracy means you sometimes read or hear something you don't like, just try and open you mind, you will be much happier and fulfilled in your life. Old and angry
is not way to live.

What about the wingnuts in other political parties? Oh, they are not conservatives, so thay's OK!

Here lies the problem in Canadian politics, no facts, no substance, just name calling and that's just what you elect, no one with substance!

I'm sorry for this country, all we can get running for government are crooks, religiuos zealots, and idiots, sprinkled wit a few good men & women who are largely ignored, not just by their own party, but by the media!

Canada will not last!

"Did you see those Liberal attack ads?"

I think that soldiers' in the street ad is excellent. It reinforces the image of Mr. Harper as an inbred psychotic. The Tories havent blown a gasket just for fun, this one really hurts.

I would run it in high rotation. :)

tks,
rjm

Below is a comment I posted elsewhere in Tyee.

You know sometimes miracles come in small steps, I truly believe that you get to know someone by both the company they keep and their words. Today while looking around for some background information of Mr. Harper I chanced upon a letter from Sinclair Stevens on a website hosted by David Orchard. Mr. Stevens was a PC Minister under the Mulroney government. Certainly from the text of the letter I suspect there is no trust from that Conservative in Mr. Harper and his ultimate goals.

A couple of the quotes of Mr. Harper that certainly caught my attention were:

May 24th Speech National Citizens Coalition (this is now The Canadian Conservative Review-I guess they finally came out of the closet)
Stephen Harper: "...whether Canada ends up with one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly secondary in my opinion"

I thought this an odd comment for a man who would be Prime Minister of all of Canada. It certainly in my mind brings into question his commitment to Canada as a whole, separate and distinct nation. You know the nation that our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers fought and died for.

Certainly I would recommend those interested to go into the website to read the full text at davidorchard.com To be honest if I hadn't googled it I wouldn't have come across it. But I do think some of Mr. Sinclairs closing comments are worth noting:

"We have never hand a Prime Minister who believes in deconfederation....Without someone to fight for Canada and to speak for Canada at the federal level, Harper would administer the coup de grace to Canada and we would all be the poorer..."

One other comment by Mr. Sinclair is certainly worthy of note and should be considered a massive condemnation of the media in Canada:

"Some say Mr. Harper has a hidden agenda.
I disagree.
He has a very clear agenda.
For some reason however, most people, including mainline media, do not want to believe Mr. Harper means what he say."

Make no mistake about it, the speeches Mr. Harper has made in the past are truly what he believes in and that scares the hell out of me.

Our home is intent on voting for Canada, in this I am not a British Columbian first, I am a Canadian first. Mr.Harper's agenda is clear, it is to see the disintegration of our nation state.

Stuart
Are saying that the only purpose of a campaign promise should be to try to inflict harm unto your opponent?

Martin has promised to alter the charter in a fundamental way, just in order to bait some conservative politicians, can anyone see why that is so wrong? Now I will freely admit that a Liberal promise isn’t worth the spit that comes out of their mouth. But how can you trust anyone that will do this, for them power is everything and they will do whatever they can to maintain a grip on it. I wonder which group of Canadians they will offer up as a sacrifice next?

Now a question for the Greens here: Does the reputation/ actions of the European Greens helps you or hinders you here in Canada?

Stuart:

Off topic, but you are dead right about the Sun's Sound Off section. The Sun completely censors my comments about transit issues in their Sound Off section, hell I even have been a guest (paid!) speaker at UBC on the subject. In the Seattle PI, everything, like the Tyee, is printed in their guest editorial section!

I'm not a die hard Green, but I just can not vote Liberal, Conservative, and/or NDP. I believe every citizen must vote so I will park my vote with the Greens.

The best thing for Canada is a minoprity government and it doesn't really matter if the Conservatives or Liberals are in charge.

To Colin:

This one time Greenie suggests...

It does both!

Grumpy, if the current polls hold, it will not be a minority government. It will be a majority Conservative government with no ability to restrain the ultra right wingnut faction. Make no mistake about it, these are not the Conservatives of old. There is not one progressive amongst this bunch to hold back the grief they will inflict on our country. This is not the party of MacDonald, Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Hatfield or other progressives. This is a party born out of the Calgary School and the fundamentalist movement in Canada and the United States.

While I would never tell anyone how to vote, I would say that this time you need to consider very carefully the ramifications of your vote and the ramifications to the nation as a whole. I would suggest strongly that you google Stephen Harper's comments since at least 1994, check out the Calgary School, his symbiotic relationship with Tom Flanagan, his comments on the Christian Coalition website and others. You should also look at David Orchards website as well as Bloc-Harper.com. There are a great many reasons not to vote Conservative and to place your vote where it will count the most, perhaps not where your heart really lies.

Oh for Pete's sake Grumpy, you're a wingnut. You believe in a return to city-states among many other bizarre comments. You don't even like Canada, can't wait for it to come to an end as you say.

Forget voting Green, you should simply not vote period. I'm happy you're not voting NDP because if you were on our side we'd have to muzzle you like the Cons do to their guys.

For anyone that wonders why they should vote NDP I simply point to Grumpy and say because that guy is against us.

It should be noted that a few of the Conservative MPs who created liabilities for the party during the last election are simply not running again. Randy White is one such party alumnus who isn't around this time.

Having said that, I agree with the gist of the article that the Conservative Party has not yet completed its transformation into a 21st century organization reflecting the cosmopolitan reality of urban Canada. Winning power will force them to grow-up very quickly I suspect.

However, as a gay man I am hesitant to immediately discount the validity of a candidate’s policy position simply because they drag their feet on the gay marriage issue. Up until a few years ago, the managing editor of Vancouver’s gay newspaper (then Gareth Kirkby) was staunchly against gay marriage for ideological reasons. Up until recently, most gay opinion makers were anti-marriage period. It was too bourgeois and assimilationist for them. In fact, gay pundit and journalist Andrew Sullivan was pilloried and vilified by his own community’s mouthpieces when he argued in favour of gay marriage over a decade ago. Now he’s the cat’s meow.

I am always fascinated by conservative talk of a “gay agenda”. It’s like being able to look at oneself through another’s eyes for a moment. It’s disingenuous to deny that gay issues (safe sex, HIV/AIDS, anti-bullying initiatives, the marriage fracas) haven’t been used by social deconstructionists to spearhead some pretty hefty changes in social norms. The whole "safe sex" bandwagon has totally up-ended our society's perspective on sex, even more than the pill. Hey, maybe trying to force public schools to distribute condoms in the boys’ washrooms wasn’t where our efforts should have been directed after all. Maybe the conservatives have a valid point when they talk about messaging, value systems and a self-reserving self-preserving ethic of the body. But social conservatives have to accept that the only reason these are big issues is because they’ve made them bigger than life. Gay marriage will have next-to-zero impact on society at large, and anti-bullying efforts to shield gay students from the worst that teenagers can do is really what parents & teachers should be doing all along. And the fallacy of the effectiveness of "condom discipline" is written all over the skyrocketting HIV rates we've been seeing just in the last five years in North American and Western European gay communities.

There’s no agenda, there’s just an orphaned constituency that’s easy prey for others with the agenda.

From the Winnipeg Sun

Vote Conservative for higher taxes.

[Winning power will force them to grow-up very quickly I suspect.]

To Nightbloom;
You are so very wrong in your statement. As one gay man to another and one who was involved politically for many years I have had to deal with these individuals. They will not compromise their views nor will they compromise their actions. It is too easy to dismiss them as just wingnuts. Very shortly it appears as though now they will be wingnuts with very real power to affect our daily lives.

Make no mistake about it, our community in Canada is in their view an eyesore, something to be plucked out and cast out.

You made mention of Randy White, his comments were very noteworthy at the time. But you should consider that he was merely repeating comments from the inner circle of the Calgary School. These Conservatives do not have a hidden agenda anymore, it is there for all to see, we just refuse to believe that they will implement it. That is very dangerous thinking, because make no mistake about, THEY WILL IMPLEMENT THEIR AGENDAand we will be the first and most visible target.

Isn't it pathetic when you see George Bush, smirk and spew his "we must spread peace and freedom around the globe" speech. While wire taps, flight bans, detainings and lying continue unchecked. Harper doesn't have the same public smirk yet but if elected he soon will. The fact that some polls have the Conservatives ahead just goes to show we aren't any different than Americans. As a matter of fact we would be dumber, as their religeous zealots come to the end of two terms we will have just started on the road to loss of rights and freedoms. And people are afraid to vote NDP for fear of wasting their vote. A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Church and state as one. Whatthefuck are some of you thinking!! Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, all steal your money, Harper will try and steal your soul.

We've got two things going on here, loud and clear. On the one hand, its "anyone but the Cons!" and for good reason. On the other hand, its "anyone but the crooked Libs" and for good reason. Neither of them deserve a majority, and for excellent reasons. They likely won't get a majority because of the bloc, go figure, we have the bloc to thank for balance...

And where does it leave us? To look for alternatives! Its no longer a wasted vote to vote for the NDP or Greens, for too many reasons now. Fact is, I can sleep if my vote turns out to be wasted over not supporting these clowns (Con and Lib) and for a 1.75, I know its not. Leaders come and go, but i'm also supporting platforms here.

Thing is, if Ralph Goodale, Belinda or Ken Dryden was in my riding, I'd vote for them. I can't think of a Conservative name that I like. Not one. I have to seriously question the motive or intelligence of anyone who would support Stephen Harper. And the NDP? There are some good quality candidates. Greens? The same. If we voted for individuals instead of color, we wouldn't be climbing out of, or in, the mess we are in today.

What irks me most, is that there have been some real stinkers for governments on a provincial basis, so any fed leader that promotes more power to the provinces openly, is promoting a greater chance of inequality between each province and the rest of Canadians.

Of course, we need a stronger central power, but not so strong, that economical regional differences can't be reflected and we need stronger federal support given to provinces who are currently resource poor, either from staggering provincial debt from previous idiot goverments, or low commodities.

The bottom line, people, is that equality is what makes this country so great and any time I hear the voice of inequality being raised, I see a large red flag. And if any of the rest of you don't see it that way, then I really don't see any of the rest of you as being all that Canadian. Piss on it. I'm opinionated.

Frank: Excellent last post.
Nightbloom: Didn't know you were gay, and it doesn't matter to me, other than sad concerns over intelligent people like yourself to contribute to the gene pool, or know what its like to a have a family of your own, unless you've already gone that route. And your right about everything you've said in your last post, (well, pretty much all of your posts) especially in relation to the effectiveness of condoms to prevent the spread of virus's and Cons propaganda. Your opinions are still big with me, dude.

nightbloom
Interesting post as always

"assimilationist", now there is a word that Mao would have loved to sling at people.

Clubofrome: Well said, (other than that profane soundbite) Sad part is, Stephen Harper already has that smirk.

And has anyone looked into his eyes? This is a highly conceited, unhealthy, yet arrogant man who thinks he's better than everyone else. He so loves to run down others, including Quebec, natives, gays, and is on record for it with his entire nation, solely to build himself up. So intellectually proud. What sickly pride oozes from this man. The sad part of it is that a large minority of participating voters people don't see it that way. It shows where we are at!

And his recent surge from the polls came from target demographics:
Very uneducated.
White males over 35+
Older white males that are well off.

Kinda tells a story, doesn't it?

The Brain wrote: "While many religions throughout the world believe (as I do) that homosexuality is an immoral act as a result of it not being Gods will, true love does sometimes develop between these relationships. In other words, it starts out as a product of fantasy, but very real feelings of love devolop between certain couples over time."

A God whose Divine Will must be discerned through books and speeches written and uttered only by human beings who claim to know His Will is no God at all. When God is able to speak for Himself (which, presumably, He is not) then I might be inclined to accept His Will.

Most of the so-called "revealed religions" whose laws and prophets Brain espouses are locked into an Aristotelian philosophical orientation that has led their collective thinking to certain inevitable conclusions. It was Aristotelian philosophy that reigned during the Middle Ages: a mode of thinking that sought Truth through inference from pre-existing premises, rather than Facts from hypotheses based on observed phenomena (i.e., social science research).

Do Canadians want a government whose social policy is based on pre-existing premises (derived from theocratic presumptions) that use specious reasoning and sophistic arguments to reach their desired conclusions? If so, then Canadians will elect a Conservative government, and the reign of irrationality will become as firmly entrenched in this country as it is in the United States.

What a surprise Colin we disagree.

You quote

I see this as the right think to do, I think trying to force you enemy and their beliefs into the light is always the right thing to do. Martin trying to bait the conservative agenda into the light is just trying to make them honest and open, we know they are full of fundamentalist types who will take apart fundamental rights if elected. Harper knows the Canadian public will not stand for this so they mussel their party members Who was it in Ont that said the beheaded US marine was like us and abortion. Vic Toews was musing about
using the notwithstanding Claus only last nov.

Colin , if you trusted someone who was working behind the seen to hurt you and being dishonest and trying to pretend he's moderate. It is my responsibility to warn you in anyway I can, if we had a media that worked Martin would not have to bait. Basically I think he;s bluffing, just like the cops do to try and extract info from a psycho.

If you research Harper and his candidates you will see something very different than the public spin. I have been in the back rooms of these Church groups while they all sit around and praise GOD for George BUSH, all the
US wannabies are licking their lips.

Anyway, I think everyone, certainly here, knows exactly why the Conservatives are soft-pedalling, or have turned away their most reactionary, pro-US, social sonservative, religious nutter, and yes, the fascist side of their face from the camera and public scrutiny this election. They are wanting to do what the most reactionary Conservative forces, and even the so-called Liberals have done throughout this Neocon period since the early 80's; sneak into power with their pro-ruling class, US subservient and anti-ordinary people programme objectives and con game.

That we should know by now and expect. What is really most disturbing, because too many of us look towards them to provide the real "substance" in ideas and attitude still, and should by now be equally obvious to every one of us in this election, is that these starched collar, suit and tie NDPers are running absolutely scared shitless, dumbed down, and leaving Martin to come across as the most militant and progressive champion of the nation. A near total abscence of any kind of a Grand Vision. They are hoping to sneak into Parliament in quite another weasely and chickenshit way, that is no less gutless and dishonest as the Liberals and Conservatives. Really, they are ALL quite cut out of the same cloth-, here a tutu, there jack boots and riding crop underneath a suit and tie, and over there in the corner, one that can't decide whether to slip on a thong or boxer shorts.

I don't know how y'all, my fellow lefties and progressives are finding this election, but I find that the process, the ideas up for public discussion and the personalities are ALL vacuous and washed, except for Duceppe, each and every bloody one, making me furious. And Layton, fer chris'sake, is Carol James playing Mr. Dressup in this Federal election.

The sooner the bloody NDP is wiped off the political map of the country, in its current configuration, with its standing ideology and programme set, in my view, the better. Maybe then, much energy that is being siphoned off to these chickenshits, can be re-directed to the creation anew of a more socially, ideologically, and programmatic challenging of the status quo, and the drift towards the great gaping maw of The Empire.

The left as kiss asses and apologists for themselves doesn't deserve any respect.

Conservatives as the betrayers of the nation, I understand and even accept at a particular level. (They fled to Canada in support of the British Empire against the US Revolution, afterall. That is their history and what we can expect of them. They now simply want to return the other way now, to the safety of the New Empire.) At least they are "more" honest and credible as Vichyists, than the Liberals are as the saviours of the nation. The NDP on the other hand, is sucking on its thumb in the corner, not wanting to offend anybody.

It's entirely possible of course that on the left, only I truly find them offensive. I accept that too.

If Jesus was around today and voted, he would not be voting conservative.

Jesus was a leftie for sure,

http://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley/evolve...html#pro-choice

Okay try this

http://www.uvm.edu/~ashawley/evolve...html#pro-choice

Okay, shitt, go back to my post on the Joyce Murray article

Conservative policies also don't add up. Not only are there the promises with a price-tag attached which add up to 30.5 billion over 5 years, 6 billion higher than the Libs, there are also the promises that don't come with a price tag like Harper's waiting list guarantee and his promise to fix the fiscal imbalance. The latter alone would be 40 billion to Quebec over 5 years, at least 25 billion to Ontario and so on.

Harper would either drive Canada into deficit, or he would raise taxes or he will break his promises.

StanM - In what manner will we be their first target? You almost make it sound like the gas chambers are about to make a come back.

The real curiosity about the Conservative Party, going right back to its Reform & C.A. roots is just how many gay men have been involved with it as both elected members and party organizers in Ottawa.

The reality of the "gay vote" today is that the boyz in their pricey Yaletown lofts who are just now getting back from their Las Vegas holidays are far more likely to agree with your putative "Calgary School" than with the tantrum-throwing ideologues on the Left that have dominated the gay political identity for the last two decades or so. I think the future profile of the gay man in public life will look a lot more like the Scott Brissons, Keith Martins, Bill Grahams (oops), Réal Ménards and Andre Boisclairs than it will the Svend Robinsons. It will be an articulate group of de-radicalized individuals with fully integrated personalities who are high in talent and low in ideology, and who don't see politics as a platform to enact their own unresolved personal dramas in the public eye.

Of course there are wingnuts in the Conservatives' midst (are there not one or two in ours?). But they've never been tested by having to hold power, let alone under minority conditions. If they squeak by this time, they'll like have no more time that Martin did to show mainstream Canada that they're worthy of governing. I don't expect to see any radical changes to the uncomfortable truce surrounding hot-botton issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Rick Mercer gets it

http://rickmercer.blogspot.com/

The National Citizens Coalition has reportedly
quietly removed from their web site archives old speeches by their past fearless leader Stephen Harper!

Looks like part of the muzzling strategy, with Harper too being muzzled.

They wouldn't want Canadians to read what Harper REALLY believes is desirable economic and foreign policy, now would they?
No, they want to keep up the spin of "we're nice moderate,honest, caring and compassionate!" If they can sell the illusion, they know it's the only way they can win. It appears to be working well.

Only 12 more days to "Prime Minister Harper", and "External Affairs Minister Stockwell Day".
Oh, happy day.

Frank wrote: "Harper would either drive Canada into deficit, or he would raise taxes or he will break his promises."

Or all of the above.

It will be a disaster.

Sunny Samson wrote that people will be left gasping and wailing "... but they didn't say they were going to do that during the election campaign! If I'd known that, I wouldn't have voted to punish the Liberals."

But the electorate does know that. The electorate isn't stupid. It's not lack of knowledge that leaves people gasping and wailing, just sheer human cupidity and vindictiveness, the very traits that conservatism embodies and the Conservatives appeal to so well. If the majority of Canadians elect a Conservative government, it won't be because they didn't know any better, but because they did, and that's what the Conservatives are counting on.

My favourite from Rick Mercer was;

Though Mercer clearly does seem get it-, assuming its not just all for show, of course. :-) One can never be too sure about show folks either. Still, eve a comic looking for laughs, like kids, do say the darnest truths sometimes.

Nightbloom wrote: "It will be an articulate group of de-radicalized individuals with fully integrated personalities who are high in talent and low in ideology, and who don't see politics as a platform to enact their own unresolved personal dramas in the public eye."

Fully integrated personalities! ROTFL!

Fully individualist and completely integrated into the dream factory of endless consumption!

From the late Christopher Lasch:

"Not only do conservatives have no understanding of modern capitalism, they have a distorted understanding of the “traditional values” they claim to defend. The virtues they want to revive are the pioneer virtues: rugged individualism, boosterism, rapacity, a sentimental deference to women, and a willingness to resort to force. These values are “traditional” only in the sense that they are celebrated in the traditional myth of the Wild West and embodied in the Western hero, the prototypical American lurking in the background, often in the very foreground, of conservative ideology. In their implications and inner meaning, these individualist values are themselves profoundly anti-traditional. They are the values of the man on the make, in flight from his ancestors, from the family claim, from everything that ties him down and limits his freedom of movement. What is traditional about the rejection of tradition, continuity, and rootedness? A conservatism that sides with the forces of restless mobility is a false conservatism. So is the conservatism false that puts on a smiling face, denounces “doom sayers,” and refuses to worry about the future. Conservatism appeals to a pervasive and legitimate desire in contemporary society for order, continuity, responsibility, and discipline; but it contains nothing with which to satisfy these desires. It pays lip service to “traditional values,” but the policies with which it is associated promise more change more innovation, more growth, more technology, more weapons, more addictive drugs. Instead of confronting the forces in modern life that make for disorder, it proposes merely to make Americans feel good about themselves. Ostensibly rigorous and realistic, contemporary conservatism is an ideology of denial. Its slogan is the slogan of Alfred E. Neumann: “What? Me worry?” Its symbol is a smile button: that empty round face devoid of features except for two tiny eyes, eyes too small to see anything clearly, and a big smile: the smile of someone who is determined to keep smiling through thick and thin."

The smile of Stephen Harper and the self-satisfied little boyz who surround him.

To Nightbloom:
[QUOTEIn what manner will we be their first target? You almost make it sound like the gas chambers are about to make a come back.
]
Obviously, the second part of your comment is ridiculous and I am sure you are aware of that. Having said that I am sure you are also aware that regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum, our community has made tremendous advances in Canada over the last decade or so. Many Conservatives, if not most, feel that we have been given special rights in excess of what the average Canadians have.

Certainly, this is not the case. We have merely been extended the same rights collectively that all other Canadians have enjoyed. In other words up until this point we have been allowed in.

Harper & Company may not tamper directly with the legislation but I expect they will tamper with the spirit of the various pieces of legislation through definition and funding. I expect and the current polls are currently indicating that we are heading for not a minority Conservative government rather we are looking at a majority situation. I fully expect to see a reversal on same-sex marriage legislation, along with that challenges to survivor benefits etc. Harper is already on record to reverse the definition of marriage, he has already stated that gosh for those who are married, their status would be protected but for those who want to come afterwards, well that is another matter. I would ask, how under the Charter could this happen? How equal is it to create two classes of citizenship within a single identifiable group?

I think it is interesting to note that 3 of 5 folks you have identified are Libs and the balance are separatists. Noting of course that Mr. Brisson was a PC who couldn't and wouldn't tolerate what was happening along with a former Reformed/Alliance Mr. Martin. I think that alone says volumes, not even to mention Ms. Stronach who had similar problems with the good old boys. These folks left the Conservatives because they knew there was and is no place in this new Conservative Party for progessives. In point of fact, an article in I believe the Christian Coalition website written by Stephen Harper clearly states that progressives have no place in the Conservative Party. Words speak as loudly as actions.

As to Yaletown, well, don't live there but from the friends we have in the Valley they all seem to understand that there is very little choice for our community but to vote either for the Liberals or the NDP.

As to abortion, as a politician of my acquaintance reminded me, you do not have to change the legislation, but then you don't really have to make the funds available either.
It is all about how you interpret the legislation knowing full well that those most affected can't afford to do anything about it.

This is the New Face of Conservatism in Canada and it is not the one that we grew up with.

From the Regina Leader-Post

In an interview with a Saskatchewan radio station, Monte Solberg said a Conservative government would not live up to the agreement, reached in November.

"(The) Kelowna agreement is something that (the Liberals) crafted at the last moment on the back of a napkin on the eve of an election," Solberg told radio station CJWW on Monday.

and then it gets even better...

"We support the targets and objectives that were defined in Kelowna," Prentice told The Canadian Press.

"The five- and 10-year plans that were talked about at Kelowna are the way to go."

Hidden <*cough*> agenda

I found some clips of Rondo Thomas, the conservative from Ajax, ranting about marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Check it out

http://www.escapetocanada.ca/rondo.html

I found it on the website for a new documentary called "Escape to Canada"

Politics is a team sport. There is nothing wrong with a party telling candidates to not start freelancing policy. When you run for a party you have a responsibility not to tarnish the brand. All parties expect their candidates to support the party's policy platform. If you are not prepared to do that, then you should run as an independent.

That candidates are being more careful is merely a sign of the growing maturity (finally) of the old Reform / Alliance crowd.

Could have fooled me. Judging by all the media streeters in both print and TV, people are totally clueless and reactionary.

Substitute "clever" for "careful" and "acceptance of what is necessary to seize power" for "maturity" and you've got a deal.

Nightbloom. In case you missed it, the loss of choice has already happened in the US. Lobbyists for pro life are responsible for making it almost impossible for access to abortion in some parts of the US. Mandatory consultation 24 hours prior to the procedure, with distribution of pro life propaganda thrown in. In Mississippi there is only one clinic left open and they harrass everyone that comes and goes. Sick individuals outside yelling stuff like "don't hurt me Mommy." As usual, the poor lose the most as they can't leave their homes, jobs, or afford travel etc to make the mulitple appointments required to have a safe abortion. My disdain for these zealots comes from the fact they don't care about anyone but themselves. If they did, they might have concerns that this planet is seriously overpopulated. The fact is they don't see anything beyond what's in it for them. Loss of choice, abortion rights; loss of freedom, travel bans, detainees, wire taps. Is there a larger conspiracy? On top of all the problems we have in this world, real problems needing solutions, we have this religeous revival to deal with. All distractions from moving forward when we need progress the most. There is nothing progressive in the conservative platform. It is a big leap backwards. No person who know's better would vote for that. You get what you deserve. The split will only get wider, the division deeper. Dumbing of the voter looks to have reached an all time high in North America. Bring on the asteroid! While we still have good ol' days to remember....

As scary as the New Face of Conservatism in Canada may be, I have yet to find one who lies as blatently as our Brain.

And if Brain, EGO or whatever nom-de-plume best suits him/it for you, were an actual candidate rather than a somewhat insecure fellow who lurks behind a loud and obnoxious construct, he might have to answer for his less than sterling words.

I think political candidates who get caught lying ought to be turfed.

I think political pundits (self-made or self-imposed) should also have a minimal ethical standard which ought to include not lying.

Given the human need to make noise, small lies seem almost inevitable, but when caught in a lie, the honourable thing would be to admit, apologize and move on.

The cheesy practice of trying to deny a lie by telling a second whopper is enough to get even the thickest candidate scraped off the election slate.

Yet, here we Tyeers sit being fed more of the Brain's wisdoms almost a week after his words proved not once, but twice, that he makes things up.

Although I don't wrap myself in a religious filter, I will this one time take a chance and ask the Brain, who claims to be a strong Christian to act like Christians claim they do and apologize for being so unchristian in his words.

If anyone spots Brain hiding behind a headline or pretending to be someone else, could they please pass on this message to him.

In an interview with a Saskatchewan radio station, Monte Solberg said a Conservative government would not live up to the agreement, reached in November.

"This just shows that the Conservatives have little to no respect or appreciation for Aboriginal Peoples,'' Chartier said in a statement

It's not too hard to see that the Conservatives' Calgary School agenda is alive and well..just muzzled for a bit and as Bluenose indicates it will be the vindictive nature of the electorate's own conservatism that will help elect them if that happens.

These are just some of The Calgary School's tenets:

Flanagan, Harper's political main squeeze, (the guy Harper smiles that smirky smile for) has argued that "the only sensible native policy was outright assimilation."

Clement Chartier, president of the Metis National Council, has responded that "if Flanagan continues to be part of the Conservative machinery and has the ear of the prime minister...our existence as a people will be at stake."

Flanagan's other pal, Barry Cooper, is oh-so-proud of their Calgary School's advancement of a uniquely Western View of Canada...along with their belief that the sooner Quebec leaves Canada the better.

As StanM says above in a series of great posts... this is about the calculated deconfederation of our country.

Amerika must be licking its lips in anticipation. Canada served up in palatable bite size chunks for them to devour. Harper will make us into such an easily digestible morsel for the Big Bad American Wolf to feast on.

And I agree, Coyote, if the NDP aren't going to speak up when our country's sovereignty is at stake, when exactly would they consider it a good time to do so?

Layton couldn't even answer the question during the debate if he wanted to be prime minister...c'mon now, that's an easy one isn't it...I mean, look at your competition... always the bridesmaid, I guess ...seems to be an NDP thing...but geez the rest of us were counting on you to catch the bloody bouquet for once and not be afraid to run with it ...

My vote goes to the moderator in the debate the other night..he asked incisive questions and followed them up, not letting the candidates off the hook...the rest of the media seems quite content to trail along behind the politicians happily allowing them to set their own agenda for the election while they play the muzzling game.

i happen to believe in god, same-sex marriage and lean far to the left in my politics. as in america, we seem to be losing the advantages of separation between church and state. we don't need political scientists to tell us that yes the conservative party is still made of reformers and the old conservative party, at least amongst the many of us who stay informed long before an election is called. the only thing i look forward to in this election is boy, it's going to be interesting when the results start coming in!

12 days is a long time, especially as a lot of people are just tuning in now. The Liberal negative ads could be effective. Voters in Ontario still recall Mike Harris and still don't like Bush and the new Lib ads do draw those parallels.

That very well may be, but how is an individual supposed to make that happen? S/he can't, that's how. All you got is but one measly vote. You can't tell how everyone else is going to vote. So be very careful. Never assume, because that makes an 'as' out of 'sum' 'e'. Or something like that. Besides, as someone else pointed out, the current polls show a Conservative majority, folks! And that exclamation point isn't to express glee! Nor is that one.

I've never been one to vote strategically; I believe you should always, always vote philosophically. Except this time (unless you're dead set on the Conservatives winning). If you don't want them in, vote for the party that has the best chance against them in your riding. And in that case, you might very well get your minority government.

What elements of the performance of the recent minority government did you favour?

Frank
Well so far they are up to their eyeballs in poop over the attack ad that talked about having the military in the cities “Soldiers with guns” they said. The Lib’s pulled the ad from their website, but forgot to pull the French version, all the while claiming it was never meant to air. Previously one of the Cabinet Ministers had claimed that PMPM had seen and approved all of the ads.

http://www.630ched.com/station/show_links.cfm

This clip from the Mike Duffy show is quite good

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTVs_Mike%20Duffy_Stands_up.wmv

The simple process of abortions has legally prevented untold numbers of present and future liberals. The Liberals with this process, have on their own accord systematically eliminated their own, present and future supporters,in short their annihilating only themselves. Check out the numbers, therefore I say leave this procedure alone, it seems to be working just fine.

I haven't seen it so can't say if its bad or not but it didn't actually air anyway so I doubt it will have much in the way of legs.

As for the Mike Duffy clip, methinks he doth protest too much. The concientious journalists he defends are invisible in the real world. But if he wants to go on an ego-inspired rant over an ad that didn't air as opposed to discussing what the 3 leaders have actually said and done then I can be forgiven for thinking he's half-gas.

clobofrome, Bluenose, StanM - You've assumed I'm defending the Conservative platform. That's not my point in writing. Obviously, I'm more comfortable with the Liberal perspective on most gay issues. But my point here is not to defend or attack any one party. I was just making the point that the Conservatives will have to distance themselves from extremists in order to broaden their appeal to mainstream Canada if/when they ever take power. Running a government will force them to moderate themselves. A head-on assault on abortion access or gay marriage by a newly elected Conservative minority would be a disaster for them, especially if they have to head back to the polls in another 18 months.

StanM:

I simply didn't see what you were getting at about gay people getting "plucked out" and "cast out". Look, not everyone has to like us. Being out of government won't make us targets - it simply means we'll be in opposition. We've become very complacent as a community as a result of having our way for so long. We've squandered a lot of opportunity, too. To be honest, I actually think we're over-indulged in a lot of ways, and really need to shape up.

I only named a few gay people in public life to demonstrate the extent to which things have moved along for us, and to demonstrate that the old archetypes no longer apply. Out gay men no longer have to find a niche for themselves within the Red Guard or through other radical avenues. Professional gay men entering politics today have a lot more options open to them. And before anyone says it: it's in spite of Svend Robinson, not because of him and his antics. There were gay people in Parliament long before Svend held his first tearful press conference (the first of many such press conferences).

How so? Gay marriage is a fait accompli, which the gay community didn't even want until just a few years ago. I still remember how Pink Triangle Press launched scurrilous editorials opposing gay marriage when (former) EGALE President John Fisher discussed it as a future lobbying objective in the early nineties. Ever wonder why that was? Now we're treating the issue like it's our holy grail. To be clear: I agree with gay marriage (tho I doubt I'll ever bother with it myself), I just find the politicking and collective amnesia surrounding the issue to be just plain silly.

And how can tinkering with government funding change anything real for us anyway? It certainly won't affect marriage. If you're referring to the funding the AIDS lobby receives, the AIDS groups could use a good reining-in after their repeated obstruction of the drug/hiv debate over the past few years. ACT still isn't on board, and YouthCo is even more of a liability. Who's funding these satrapies? Maybe they should be obliged to cut back on those taxpayer-funded "virgin tours" of bathhouses for queer youth (all in the name of safe sex, but really just free advertisement & client procurement for the bawdy-shops). I mean who even thinks up this kind of silliness?

Maybe a little fiscal rationing and a turn in opposition will remind us of our real priorities, and could have some positive benefits for the gay community after all. But who am I to say.

I'm just saying the the sky will hardly fall on our heads no matter which way it goes on the 23rd. In my experience, gay people are pretty tough, and can handle a few bracing knocks from the social luddites among us. I'm more threatened by gangs of Surrey kids coming into my neighbourhood drunk & high with baseball bats than I am by the prospect of Steven Fletcher or Nina Grewal holding a cabinet portfolio.

Re Reform or Conservative?

I am not sure how long we should keep seeing Reform in the Conservatives. After all, the NDP are not led by Tommy Douglas, and the Liberals are not the same racist crew who said that a vote for the CCF was a vote for the Japs. At some point, the Conservatives will have to be judged on their own merits, or demerits, not those of one of its antecedents.

Nonetheless, I do think they continue to be social conservatives, and would waste valuable government time on absurdities like banning gay marriage. Getting tough with homos might play well in Hicksville but has zip to do with federal governance, which to me is entirely about defending Canada and our way of life.

And I don't see them as fiscal conservatives either. A true book-balancing, minimal spending fiscal conservative, I can support. But what is so conservative about pledging to reduce taxes? Hello, that's called growing the deficit.

Frank
A link to it, knowing a bit about your background, I thought you would find it interesting. Funny the Libs were the last party to post soldiers in the streets of our cities.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/story_05.html?id=99cf0a17-5b81-46e2-9f42-56e6e752c524#

Yammer, Harper was an elected Reform party member. The Conservatives therefore have hardly moved on. If there was still a Liberal running who had said a vote for the CCF is a vote for the Japs then I think it would be fair to say they haven't either.

by the way, one of Mike Duffy's dutiful Cdn journalists (yes, Charles Adler is stretching the definition) was on the radio and his topic was "Weird things you do in the morning". Guess its expecting too much to actually tune in CKNW for the first time in months and expect to hear politics being discussed.

nightbloom

I have seen your types in the inner cities in the US, the worst kind of minority, actually quite disgusting. You not have comfort so you piss on those who gave it to you. Let me expand

I meet a Latin American who votes republican and wants tax cuts and to be tough on crime and refugees. You see now that things are okay for little Pedro he wants his tax cut at any cost, he has a nice home in the burbs, a good job and a nice SUV and shops at Costco and see's himself as a true American, proud
and free, ask him where he comes from and he gets upset and says , I'm American, he even laughs at street vendors or new refugees etc, no sympathy or respect whatsoever.

But the truth is that Pedro's family and relatives only a few years ago had to struggle and face discrimination at every level , and the rights and laws that have now delivered him were fought for with blood and sacrifice of
many who came before him. Pedro's biggest fear is to be seen as brown or associated who those dirty faced immigrants he now distances himself from.

So back to you nightbloom, you can poke fun at gay activist like Svend (brought in hate crime laws for gays etc)but you forget the struggle gays have went threw to get here today, go on and intellectualize and have you
Starbucks but in the end when things get bad you will come crying back to those you call silly.

And Colin

LOL, you Radio message was broadcast from Edmonton, LOL, who cares, like preaching to the converted. Critics from Alberta are good news, hopefully Ralf Kline gets in the mix

Don't you see the connection, Nightbloom?

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitehurst01252005.html

Theresa Whitehurst, a Christian psychologist used to have a website that countered the advocacy of child abuse that FF advocates as a way of disciplining their children. One unrelated site I read a number of months ago quoted D from his book describing his beating into submission his dog who growled at him! Now, I haven't' read his book, so I can't attest to it how serious he was, but according to the website, apparently he, in seriousness, used it as an example of having to show children/spouse and pet 'who's boss'. Guess what breed? A daschund!
His crime? Wanting to stay on the warm radiator in the bathroom instead of going to his sleeping area one cold night! And, the dog growled and barred his teeth to him. Which tells you a lot. Poor dog.

Yuck.

Alice Miller writes a lot about this tragedy of rearing ones children in this way and not only the private ramifications, but also the public ones as in the case of Hitler etal.

I heard not long ago a radio program which I immediately turned off, the most absolute hate rousing tirade under the guise of a Christian program against 'feminists', imaginable. I was shocked it was on the air waves and in retrospect I should have contacted the CRTC. I don't remember what station it was on.

Why do the people who are on the Christian Right (which is an oxymoron in my opinion) focus on two passages in the old testament that refers to homosexuality in the bible. Two passages, compared to the many, many in the new covenant, the new Testaments that says things like watch it if you exploit the widows and the children. A millstone around you neck if you harm one hair of a child, love thy neighbour as ones self, take care of the poor, take the beam out of your own eye instead of concentrating on the speck in another's?! Judge not lest ye be judged? etc and on and on!

Well, I think we know it comes from an ignorant population in a rural area of the South, (and that whole puritan bs that allowed the Northerners to burn women at the stake! and who repressed their own sexuality to the point perverse point of demonizing it and projecting it onto others.

How long with property rights will it be before one can only vote if one owns property and how many women will that disenfrachize? Already, the misuse of my taxes for things I totally do not believe in as opposed to balancing what most women care about is a significant problem in this country.

Colin, thanks for the link. Melodramatic but what's the big deal? Harper looks sinister, the voice over keeps trying to make it sound bad. But wouldn't most people seeing that ad just say "ya, so? Why shouldn't Cdn soldiers be in Cdn cities?"

I don't think the answer to a melodramatic un-aired ad should be more melodramatics.

...apparently, he and other comma errors as per usual.

That's an obnoxious post Stuart.

You presume to remind me of the struggles of gay people?

The whole "self-loathing minority" schtick is the dirtiest trick the Left routinely pulls on minorities who don't tow their party line. I saw it pulled many times in university during the stalinist p.c. era, and is one of the reasons why I have such a low opinion of Leftist ideologues. It is always trotted out by the Left whenever a person of colour or a gay person has the temerity to venture outside of the ideological pasture which the Left has cordoned off for them.

I was sorta wondering when someone would try it on me here.

In what way am I like your little Pedro character? Because I've departed from the Left's assigned political script for me as a "gay man."

Tell me Stuart, how should real gay men think?

How should real gay men vote?

Do I have to vote for Svend? Does that mean I can't sleep with men anymore? If I don't agree with him on gay politics or Israel or Stanley Tookie Williams does that make me a "self-loathing homosexual"?

When have these "hate crime" laws ever been marshalled in my defence or any gay person's? They're useless.

The fact that gay people have come such a long way over the past 20 years is because Canadians have come such a long way. Not because someone passed a law or held a press conference.

I am safe because I am surrounded by reasonable people in my neighbourhood, at my work, at the mall and in my street. Ultimately our civic well-being (all of us) isn't determined by laws. It's determined by the ambient kindness and resonableness of the strangers all around us that make up society.

John Duffy, the Liberal spinmaster is the best thing that has happened to the Conservatives.
This pompous ass is a well known liar.
I am sure glad he is still working on this campaign in the Liberal war room.
The battle is going very well for the Con.
I guess the NDP atr really toast now.

I don't know about Pedro, but I can say as a woman I struggled with the idea of all those neo-con women, until I realized they were the equivilant of groupies.

Well, it's mostly because 'the left' fought a long and hard civil rights movement which is being seriously undermined.

You are safe because as our laws reflect, it is wrong to target someone based on gender, race, disability and sexual orientation. You are safe because the 'left' who worked so hard on the principles of equality and via public education (another reason some hate it so) have taught the principles of universality etc.

Canadian attitudes have shifted as society moved towards more tolerance, just what you all are fighting against by supporting the radical right anything, never mind Christian.

equivalent...

I'd like Stuart to defend his post.

He's the blogger equivalent of those Democrat activists (many of them white!) who tossed Oreo cookies at black Republican candidates and their families recently in the U.S. The nerve of some people - I honestly don't know where people get off doing & saying the things they do sometimes.

That's just gross, and is totally tangential to the reasoned points I was making.

Moreover, the insinuation that a person of colour who does not vote Left is somehow manifesting hatred for himself and his own race is in itself racist. The fact that Stuart has drawn me personally into this analogy just adds to the un-called-for nature of his comments.

I think Stuart should retract.

LOL - and I think I just pulled the blogger equivalent of a Svend-style press conference!

You can't see my tears, but they're real, people! They're real!

Just kidding ;-)

Looks like the oilsands have finally caught the eye of corporate america and the corrupt, evil bush administration (a loose affiliation of schlumply millionaire chickenhawks)
Who-else could bankroll the ongoing coup d'etat happening in Canada right now.
Anything to get that buck-toothed, ass kissin', lizard brain, yes-man in power.
The package comes complete with phoney polls, relentlessly slanted media coverage, unlimited campaign funds, high level political espionage and sabotage and maybe even an assassination or two!
Looks like they miscalculated the resistance of the "freedom-fighters" (isn't that what THEY called the same dudes in afghanistan?) in Iraq and now they plum gotta invade another country to steal IT'S oil resources.
So, using the above noted mechanisms, install your own puppet dictator by whatever means are necessary.(not even the mass-murdering cheney/haliburton... administration could sell outright invasion and murder of Canadian citizens YET. (white anglo english speaking citizens that is)
Ohwell I guess it's time to pack up stakes and move to Venezuela.
One parting question though dubayee, does harper swallow??

If you are black or gay you have to be a lefty.
Isn't this obvious ?
I agree with Nightbloom, I followed the Oreo story and was disgusted, what a hypocrital bunch these Liberal Democrats are.
I wonder, really what is the % of gays who even want to get married ?
Stuart doesn't know how to deal with you Nightbloom, you don't fit into his stereotype of gays. He is all confused.

Bye JJ, we're going to miss you. One question before you go tho', what does Jack's bath water taste like?

I could not have said it better myself, Grumpy. Note that Ian Waddell, Ed Broadbent and Libby Davies are all running, all fossils and totally out of touch. And they wonder why they can't breach the 15% vote level. Laughable.

The Liberals have run such an awful campaign they deserve to lose. I a way, I am looking forward to a Reform Party minority government. Toadying up to the Bloc will show their true colours and I doubt they can muzzle the Seig Heil element for long.

I am happy you ask me these questions, Pedro , sorry I mean nightbloom, I am tired of your little shots at those willing to fight while you enjoy the spoils, you are a conservative as much as Pedro is white

I was sorta wondering when someone would try it on me here.
In what way am I like your little Pedro character? Because I've departed from the Left's assigned political script for me as a "gay man."
Tell me Stuart, how should real gay men think?
How should real gay men vote?

Pedro has tried to shed his image and be something else(mainly main stream white) and is ashamed of his roots , he stays quite when he hears his new friends make uncomfortable
remarks etc, he has become his dream, normal American , not a wetback, not a fag, not abnormal

A real gay man should have respect for those who have fought against repressive and right wing governments the church and other groups that have fought to suppress gay and minority rights. Those people who got arrested and
have suffered to afford the human rights you enjoy, the people who have struck fear and doubt into those bigots who used to muse out loud about the perversion of homo's , don't believe me go visit Focus on the Family website, 7 conservative MP's belong to this group. Real Gay men should not vote or be associated with a Party who wants Focus on the Family members in the fold.

Just fur fun , here is a ad they ran

"
[B]Focus on the Family Says Homosexuality Is Preventable and Treatable; Focus on the Family Coming to Atlanta for Upcoming Conference
Topics to be addressed at the conference include: the clinical development of homosexuality, the gay agenda in public schools, homosexual recovery, how change occurs in youth, and the appropriate Christian response to the gay activist movement.[/B]

Stop acting like the union guy who hates unions, who complains with his good wage and vacation pay and full health benefits.

Well Stuart, are all blacks supposed to be Christian ? After all it was Christians who spearheaded the anti-slavery movement in the US.
And I am sure you will agree, the people of Afghanistan should worship Americans.
Caught with your pants down Stuart ?
You are bigoted to both gays and conservative people.

LOL , Whatever nightbloom, get over yourself, what's the matter, its okay to take cheap shots at Svend who had one screw up in over 25 yrs of hard work bringing up issues that everyone else was afraid to, I don't give 2 shitts who you vote for, vote conservative and give them a majority, watch the kooks line up and take away your rights, I don't care, maybe people like Svend , Bill Silksay and Libby and others will stay home and watch it happen. Watch the intolerance grow in your community, I just wanted to call a spade a spade, people like you make me sick, Canada
is a very tolerant country due to hard work by brave people, not the people you associate with.

You want to support folks like Rondo , be my guest. Maybe he can convert you or treat your illness

http://www.escapetocanada.ca/rondo.html

Poor Ron, stay with us buddy, I know this is an exciting time for you, we are almost American yep, just image Ron, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Robertson on every channel.

Conservatives are not Christians Ron, Jesus was a socialist, I am trying to point out the flawed thinking and exposing the bigots you and nightbloom vote for. Jesus would puke if he showed up today to see Harper and BUSH as his key supporters .

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

And here we are, hoping the Liberals will have the wherewithal to do something to isolate the Conservatives. Speaks volumes, Frank. (And I know what you mean.)

Our main hope actually, as even pollsters are admitting, as a consequence of the high refusal rate of the public to participate in polls, reported 80% on CBC today, the accuracy of those polls predicting a minority Conservative government are highly suspect. Or any result they may predict in future. (Which doesn't mean that I think we should ignore them.)

But again, the figure I'm going to be watching over all others just about, is that non-participation rate-, which I have read one analysis say ( can't remember where) that it is likely going to be very high. Widespread disgust with the current politics and state of the country is conversely, driving folks away from participation in the electoral process.

I don't quite understand it, for one might think it would be driving folks the other way, but apparently not. They apparently don't even see a straw out there that they feel worth grasping onto.

I'll repeat it, at the risk even of painting myself into the corner of predictability again, but the politics of the country grows ever more ripe for the unexpected, and the emergence of new directions and forces-, likely right and left. The politics of bland and the centre is about run its course-, in my unbiased view. 8-D

We are desparately in need of real, as opposed to candy ass, feinting at shadows polarization. (Of which the old "queer" versus "straight" freakshow, as a serious issue, only brings on a big public yawn anymnore. It was a carnival, like I say, a freak sideshow issue when nothing was really happening on the Left anyway, of any greater or relevant consequence. Now become just a laugh. Sorry, but a great irrelevance for 90% of the population. And I don't give a shitt who marries or does what up the poop chute or 'gina licks who. Yawwwwn.)

What I have noticed lately, beyond the new boldness in putting old bigotries to print, is the meekness of the rebuttals. Ranters calling for more guns and an end to sodomites and baby-killers are, for the first time in a long time, going unchallenged. This is ominous.

Recalling the early discussions on AIDS, a time when it was considered a gay/Haitian disease (showing my age here), I can still hear one conservative voice, a matron from the Christian right, proposing that all gays be incarcerated and all AIDS victims be humanely put down. The discussion then moved on with not a boo raised to discredit Madam's proposal.

It's a slippery slide back to those days and Mr. Harper's packing lube. What to do?

Suggestions?

Ron: Ed Broadbent has retired. Get your facts straight before popping off. And Christians spearheaded the anti-slavery movement? Where do you get your "facts"?

As for negative ads, what about the Conservative one that's been running long before the new Liberal ones, where people sit at a coffee shop shaking their heads at all these out of context quotes from the Gomery commission? And the Korean store owner exchanging disgusted looks with her customer then going out to change the sign in front of her store? Doesn't that count as negative? Or is it only the Liberals who can go negative? Gimme a break.

Hey, great scoop, Working Man.

I didn't think you had it in you.

BTW, just who is Ed Broadbent running for this time?

I think your concrete hardened when you weren't looking or something.

"Note that Ian Waddell, Ed Broadbent and Libby Davies are all running...."

They are? I'm pretty sure Ed Broadbent retired from politics recently. Goes to show you that Working Man doesn't have a clue.

Nightbloom wrote: "Gay marriage is a fait accompli, which the gay community didn't even want until just a few years ago."

*The* gay community? As one of my friends (a well-known activist in Atlantic Canada) once quipped, "There is no gay community. But there are many gay communities."

There have been gay and lesbian voices that have argued in favour of same-sex marriage for the past two hundred years (and possibly far longer). And for those gay men and lesbians who are not economically privileged enough to purchase the protections that legal counsel and notarised documents offer, marriage is a much more affordable and accessible avenue to the rights that only well-heeled queers could afford to dismiss.

I don't know anyone who lives in Yaletown but I do know several non-unionized working-class gay men and lesbians in East Vancouver who are very very anxious about the prospect of a new Conservative government taking away the rights that Parliament and the Supreme Court have granted us. The Americans do this on a routine basis: it seems that the American way may be coming to Canada after all.

God, THANK YOU, puupyg! I just scrolled through this entire discussion with increasing dismay that no one had called The Brain out on his homophobic, intollerant post. Homosexuality is amoral? Please. Save that crap for bible study.

As to some homosexuals not wanting same-sex marriage legalized:

I'm sure there are some heterosexual men out there that wish there was no such thing as traditional marriage. Much easier to dump an ex and keep your bank account. Any other "ideoligical reasoning" by certain homosexual men that they owe nothing to their partner is convenient at best.

I heard Jane Rule (novelist, lesbian, Galiano Island resident) in an interview questioning why gays and lesbians would ever even want to get married.
From her feminist point of view, marriage is rotten archaic institution established by an oppressive, patriarchal system, which our culture needs to evole out of and be liberated from!
I don't know how common her view is among gay people. I don't hear many others voicing this opinion, but maybe they've just been cowed into silence by the enthusiastic pro-marriage gay faction.

Stuart you stated quite a few posts back that Jesus was a lefty,the Bible makes it very clear that he was right handed.In addition, later on, you also mentioned that, he was a socialist, when in fact its well documented in the Bible, that he was member of the Green party, get your facts straight will ya.

"Focus on the family says homosexuality is preventable and treatable".
Isn't it there right to believe what they want. If Christians believe that God promotes pro-creation and not homosexuality so what.
Can anyone prove that homosexuality isn't preventable and treatable?
I never read so many Chritianphobic writers as there are here on Tyee. You guys act like the world will come to an end if a few Christians get elected.
The Conservatives will form the next government and all this Chritian fear mongering will seem so childish a year or two from now.

I, for one, have no problem with what Christians (or their offshoot, "Chritian"s) believe. They can make up any rules they want for their club. However, the problem is when people of whatever religion try to enforce their views on the rest of society. Live and let live, baby. Non-"Chritians" have every right to mock Christians just as Christians have every right to be self-righteous. What they can't do is tell non-Christians how to act. There's nothing phobic about that.

woody, Jesus was a member of the People's Front of Judea not to be confused with the less popular Popular Front of Judea or the even less popular Romans Rule! party.

And he was not green, he was kind of dusty.

Everyone should belive in something and I believe I'll have another drink

The immortal words of WC Fields

No, we already have a few Christians elected. Its a hell of a lot of them we're a little squeamish about. Although I'd only worry about the world coming to an end if it was anti-Christians, I read that somewhere in a thick book.

And finally, I believe Ron is referring to the anti-slavery groups that sprung up around parishes in states like Massachussetts and Maine prior to the Civil War. I don't think he was trying to say all US religous groups, or even the majority, were of a similar bent. But since everyone in the US at the time, north or south, was a Christian except a guy named Eddy living in Jersey its safe to conclude that you can find US Christians for or against anything you want.

It would be really nice if we could all live peacefully in anarcho-syndicalist communes free from oppression and exploitation. But when one is having a heart attack and one's partner is not permitted to visit one in hospital nor to have any information about one because he is not a relation and therefore the hospital has no legal obligation to keep him informed about one's condition and then the government offers one the opportunity to marry at $100 for the license and $80 for the civil service one soon sees the wisdom in removing one's post-structuralist head from one's constructivist ass and taking whatever one can get.

I am completely in favour of polygyny and polyandry and polyamory and polywannacrackery and anything else one can think of provided it is conducted between or within or among consenting adults. But until the day arrives when the entire world evolves into one vast Galiano Island populated with all manner of novelists and musicians and ear candlers and iridologists and dialectical materialists, etc., etc., I will be only too happy to settle for a mere marriage license. It may be an act of gender treachery, but the heart (and the wallet) has its reasons.

Perhaps people like Jane Rule ought to consider (on behalf of benighted others, of course) that it might be more agreeable to be liberated from the institution of marriage after one has first had the opportunity to be oppressed by it. After all, it is unarguably inevitable that the experience of same-sex marriage will evoke strident calls for its dissolution rather than its transformation. This is something that all novelists know, particularly those who are resident on Galiano Island.

Cowed? Moo.

Somebody's prognostication on a US site. It was so unAmerikan, I liked it.

Well, I would have liked it anyway.

Meant to include this with the above piece. A really interesting read.

http://alternet.org/story/30640/

broadbent isn't running. he's just hoping for another cushy post or commission after this election. libby davies is, and i hear she actually has some brains and is worth her salt. as for ian waddell; he's been sucking off the hind teat of gov't for his entire career without a single notable accomplishment.

Bluenose, I am a gay man who agrees with Jane Rule and her right to speak her mind. I am happy for your wallet and heart that you can now marry. I don't ever plan to do so. Gay marriage will still not solve the problem of hospital access rights for people who are not married. If the lobby had been towards recognition of all domestic partnerships we might be closer to solving that problem. I do not see gay marriage as a great victory and see many pressing problems which I hope we can now begin to address both within gay communities and the mainstream.

GRW

I appreciate your musings on religious people imposing their views on others.
But may I please state the obvious. Muslim ( Islam Fundamentalists ) Wasabi , Sunni militant warriors want to kill most of us Western Infidels.
Now lets compare this with mainstream Christian US views, which do not have hit men assassins out there killing Muslims.
These Muslim Militants don't think much of homosexuals or women by the way.
Why does the left back these GUYS (gays)
That's it, I wondered why the guys hold hands.

But, the issue isn't whether individual gays want to get married, or don't. Nor, is it if they wish to be shackled by old and outworn institutions, if that is what one thinks of marriage. The issue is a matter of civil rights. That's all!

I can see how it may be difficult at first for we as a society to change in this way. Many older people within our society never even talked about sex in the open. And, some cultures bring their own attitudes about homosexuality when they come to Canada, just like they do about women. However, the questions is as I stated above, does the state offer the service of marrying people? Yes. Therefore the state can not discriminate.

What the smarter members of the clergy are worried about, I suspect is an attack on their tax-free status if they refuse to perform same-sex marriage. That's another issue and one that can probably be remedied under the freedom of religion aspects of our laws. It's clear to me that their right not to perform a marriage ceremony they don't believe in is their civil right.

It's fascinating and a little bizarre to hear the Christian right believe that they are being persecuted. Let me tell you, your not. Persecution isn't having the world be the [B]world[/B. Persecution is a very serious and terrible thing. The Bible also says 'be in the world, but not of it'. It doesn't say take over the world by political blackmail, smears and hate-mongering! But most of us with a smattering of religious training understand this isn't about Christ and being a Christian.

When you threaten the human rights of other people, you also threaten your own because you set dangerous precedents.

Ron, you have a day time personality and a night time one. Gee! What is that blather?

Of course the same holds true for Muslims and any group that may seek to infringe on the civil rights of others. That's a given.

You (anyone) have all the rights in the world til you infringe on anothers and that's where your rights end. Bottom line.

Other people doing something you don't believe in is not an infringement of your civil rights. As much as it may offend your sensibilities.

No Redrivergirl, Christians are concerned about the about face by Prime Minister Paul Martin stating in front of millions of people, that he would, as his FIRST PRIORITY, and I am not making this up, delete the NWC clause from our charter.
They ask, " gee Paul you told us that if us brand name churches were threatened to perform same sex marriages, you Paul, the PM himself, the grand POOPA would enact The Not Withstanding Clause to protect us.
Where are we at with that PROMISE BROKEN.
Why are you such an idiot ? And why would anyone vote for you ?
This is a human rights issue, I am a human.

You are, Ron. I know and you deserve respect as well as everyone.

Blessings.

Ron:
You won't catch me going easy on Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, or any othe religion. They, along with Christians, all believe in an invisible man in the sky. And they're all welcome to. It's only when their (your) beliefs tell me what I have to do that I have a problem. And we don't happen to have a party of militant Muslims leading the polls in our election right now. But trust me, if that ever happened, I'd be here railing against them, too.

You say Muslims want to kill us. That's ridiculous. That's like saying all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Only the fundamentalists do.

I think that's the big problem with conservative parties everywhere -- too much black & white thinking. Too simple.

There's a so-called poll revealed in all its glory at the beginning of the comments on this article. My question is, who is this polling organization, Robbins Sce Research? He cites polling almost 100,000 people across Canada. That's a HUGE poll by polling standards. [I have a degree in marketing and communications which includes statistical analysis and polling.]

This Robbins guy mentions he was commissioned to do this poll ...by a U.S. business interest and a Canadian business, and a Canadian ‘small business’ specifically NewTrend Optical of Port Coquitlam BC, owner Jim Van Rassell. So some some optician in the Fraser Valley commissions the largest poll of the Canadian election? Backed by some anonymous US party??? Oh, oh.

Yet, the website's sole reference to who it/they are is:

Glen P. Robbins
(604) 942-3757

No physical address. Odd for a legitimate business. Exactly how can this one person afford to do this massive polling? His website lists dozens and dozens of polls, claiming the same huge numbers of people were polled. Also, his poll results include some very questionable conclusions and opinions offered by this Robbins guy. Respected professional pollsters don't do that.

What credentials does this Glem P. Robbins have?? Why won't he reveal who commissions him to do these polls (if in fact he has paying clients)??? I think this is just one guy, creating a fake polling organization, trying to influence people. Can anybody out there shed some light on this? Tyee staffers? You're in the business, what do you say?

Brother Erwin writes:

"Now lets compare this with mainstream Christian US views, which do not have hit men assassins out there killing Muslims."

Really Ronnie? How then would you analyze the deaths of, at a minimum, of 30,000 Iraqi civilians, all planned and cheered on by the Christian right in the US? Or the public calls from the Christian leaders in the US demanding the assassination of foreign political and religious leaders? Your analysis is not only faulty Ronnie, it is fraudulent.

The reality is, Erwin, various western imperialisms , from even before the rise of the current US Empire, and indeed before the earlier French, German, Portuguese, Dutch and, the great Britisn Empire have been in the Middle East killing Muslims, raping their lands of resources, installing and propping up over them dictatorial, Empire serving regimes, like the Saudi royal family, the Jordanian monarchy, Mobarak in Egypt, and yes, Sadaam in Iraq, and the Peacock Throne of the former Shah in Iran. Which has had the long damaging effect of holding down all of these countries of the Middle East in oppression and poverty, and all the "fundamentalist" encouraging effects of that, for centuries.

All that is occurring now, with the rise of militant Muslimism and its "strategic need" to attack the West, especially current US imperialism, is that the chickens of western Empire policy for these last hundreds of years are finally coming home to roost. (Or fly into the Twin Towers, in this case.)

I don't expect you to acknowledge that, for you have quite another US Empire, neoconservative agenda that you apologise for, and attempt to rationalize.It's more important that other more "objectively" framed minds are aware of it though, and do acknowledge the central driving force at work here in the Middle East, and by way of explaining the current role of the US Empire over there in Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to re-assert Empire control over that part of, and indeed the whole world, including Canada.

And as a final observation, when we are musing various religious fanatical fundamentalisms, much of what drives and attempts to explain away the US Empire and its current imperial dominance policy, at back of it is an equally fanatical Christian fundamentalism. (And I am not saying all Christian are so, any more than all Muslims.) There is more fanatical religious fundamentalism loose in the world right now, than just that of Muslims however. The US imperial heartland is itself no less much a Christian fundamentalist, bible thumping and rationalizing/ self-justifying State. The US Army and Marines are their "hit-men" Ron, set loose in the world killing Arabs.

Your shallow, most reationary US serving ideology and attempts to justify its global imperialism here Ron, is weak and pathetic, yes. But more, it simply ignores real history, real politics, real people including Muslim Arabs and others in that part of the world. Yours is merely a pathtic apologists role, devoid of a fair and balanced understanding, that serves but your Master's Voice.

Washington is your Mecca, Ron. Genuflect, genuflect.

I hear that jesuz is a man who floats in the clouds!!!

Good posts Sunny Samson

That Robbins guy was giving me the creeps, why not email him the same questions.

I'm glad you bring it up, I have been trying to find some info on US organizations funding the conservatives, I Google Focus on the Family , gay rights and Cash for the North, I actually find a link from Focus on the Family which titles cash for the North , I try and open the link and nothing, it has been removed. seems all posts related to this have been removed. This is not the conservative party folks , its the George Bush republicans running up here, its typical US interference in our election. We need to dig out more proof,

As a side note, did anyone see the front cover of today's province, the conservative guy charged with smuggling, guy looks like Austin Powers, check it out.

A rich guy trying to smuggle in a mercedes full of booze!!!
Ha!, he's a living metaphor for the republican/conservative party.

Stuart - As you've done on other threads, you've fallen back on personal attacks because you can't seem to counter my arguments.

Your whole racist "pedro" analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the comments I've posted. You're just totally out of line.

I'll respond to Bluenose, since he at least is dealing with the issues rather than slinging mud, which seems to be your only way of dealing with opposing opinions.

Bluenose - As I said, I'm far more comfortable with the Liberal or NDP take on gay issues (and social issues generally) than with the Conservatives. That wasn't my the point I was trying to get across.

Nor was I defending social conservatives. I'm simply saying that the sky is hardly falling on us just because the Conservatives may take power. We've survived much worse, and there's only so much they can do to delay the inevitable.

I'm making an historical point about the progression of gay activism and its relationship to changing party platforms. There was once a time not long ago when "marriage" was anathema to gay activists - the opposition within the community got quite ideologically heated. The gay press (monopolized by Pink Triange Press in Canada's major anglophone urban centres) was dead against it for a long period of time. This was because hard-core ideologues viewed marriage as assimiliationist & bourgeois.

That's all I'm saying.

You're right that there are many gay communities. The term "Gay community" is simply a convenient construct to represent something complex, the meaning of which is also generally understood & accepted (I think). Now more than ever the "gay community" is a mosaic whose various pieces often have little or no contact with one another. The gender divide is only the start of it.

Frank

The ad is silly I agree, but the attempted message was serious and that’s what offended people. It also reflects their poor grasp of history, as the last party to put soldier in the streets of our cities was their own.

Your ability to quote Monty Python, is admirable, I wonder if there is any subject in the English language that you could not find a Monty Python reference to?

Jesterjogger

You might have a hard time getting from the airport to Caracas, as the main road has collapsed due to neglect, Chavez has been to busy with his revolution to worry about roads and other minor details. When I look at Chavez I can see that the seeds of Bolivar are still bearing fruit unfortunately.

Grw
The majority of Muslims don’t want to kill or be killed, but a large portion want to fulfill the destiny of Islam and turn the world into a Islamic garden, don’t worry you will still be able to practice your infidel religion as long as you pay your tax to the Mosque for the privilege to do so and that you are careful not to “defame” Islam or the prophet. Then of course there are the Wabbhi’s who do want to kill you and purge the earth of us vermin.

Wallace
As opposed to the 1.2 million Muslims (and a few other small sects) killed by other Muslims in the Iran-Iraq war or the average of 100,000 dead/disappeared a year under Saddam? Not to mention a good portion of that 30,000 are average people killed by Muslim suicide bombers.

Coyote
Yes I sure the region pines for the good old days under the Ottomens who were so benevolent. Imperialism was not a western invention, they were just better at it or had better technology.

a lot of atheists destined to be wormfood on this thread. couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of lefties.

colin, nope, the wisdom of Monty Python pretty much knows no bounds.

On Chavez, as long as he's getting the support of the disenfranchised you have to figure he's doing something right. There's websites where you can read about various supports that have been created but what it boils down to is that the right ruled Venezuela forever and the people lived in squalor. Now they have greater access to education and medical help, food etc and the handing over of unused land also seems very popular. Its always instructive to note where a gov'ts power base lies when you want to understand that gov't.

As for the Ottomans they could run a decent harem like nobody's business. Every other ruler in the Renaissance-Age of Reason world knew it and would have copied it if it hadn't been for that excommunication thingy. Not that their own castles were all filled only with administrators, it was the age where you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting at least one Philip the Bastard.

Speaking of which, smuggling a Mercedes full of booze is bad optics. Why even stand by this guy?

Which says dick shit, Colin, and explains even less.

Nobody, certainly not even the Arab street, outside of perhaps the most rabid religious nutters, no less than Christian fundamentalists here and in the US, wants to go back in time and development. Ditto anybody's imperialism, ancient or current.

The problem you Neocon wingnuts cannot, or refuse to get your head around with your straight-line true-believer, national chauvanist thinking is, the need to get beyond here in terms of social thinking and development-, beyond the age of all imperialisms and the politics of political and economic dominance-, of which the current main threat to us all emanates from the US Empire.

But which is outside the vision range of the ideological blinders, (or blinkers to you folks caught up in US linguistic mores) such as you neoconservatives choose to wear.

It is what makes you enemies, fifth column betrayers of Canada, in my view.

yarrow - You've touched on one of the more fascinating permutations the Great Marriage Debate has taken over the past 15 years. It demonstrates just how improvised this whole reconception of "marriage" by political interests has been:

Remember when Allan Rock, as Justice Minister, floated plans to expand the privileges of "marriage" to all permanent domestic units? It would have extended recognition of a binary partnership to (for example) two adult siblings who cohabitated & owned property together, or a parent and adult child living together, or couples of a hetero or homo orientation. All of them could jointly own property, have joint custody of minors, adopt children jointly, etc.

Now isn't that progressive? That avenue would have circumvented useless battles over the word "marriage" and also would have avoided nasty battles with religious-minded citizens who view "marriage" as a sacrament rather than a secular contract. It also would have totally removed reproduction and sexual activity as a determining issue. Many felt that this was a more accurate reflection of the future of postmodern domestic arrangements.

Ever wonder why such a forward-looking reconception of the family unit & domestic partnership just quietly disappeared from the debate?

I don't think it was me who started any personal attract

I quote you

I just got sick of your personal attacks on effective people, you call it ideology and I call it passion, no one has worked harder for social and gay issues than Svend , without effective people nothing would have
changed for the status of gays etc, I just don't like those who bite the hand that feeds them so to speak.

I don't care if you like my reference to Pedro , it fits and it upsets you as it should.

Little Pedro voting republican , voting for the party that sent death squads into his homeland and forcing the neo liberal agenda on them. Forgetting that he was once a refugee and that the rights he had were fought
for on the streets of America, now he's just happy that gays are not able to marry and he lives within 2 miles of a McDonalds, Starbucks and Wal Mart.

P.S Pedro also feels he is now a de-radicalized individual with a fully integrated personality

After reading this thread, I've got to admit, that certain things need clarification in relation to rebuttals on my own earlier posts.
Firstly, I addressed a specific post with these words... "To the religious wingnuts, zealots and flakes (and only to the religious wingnuts, zealots and flakes)" If anyone wishes to comment on that post, well... it kinda makes them...

Secondly, I have certain opinions that I'm sure, some of us won't agree with, but... wake up! Sometimes, opinions are all we've got! There's a big difference between thinking and knowing. Hasn't anyone figured it out yet that beliefs are just that? Kind of tells you what you should put your faith in, doesn't it?
And what, am I supposed to believe that I'm a know it all (as if such a diety exists)? But I'm sure, with mere mention, that's what I'll be accused of, and you have every right to your own opinion. Just don't go telling me its fact, and frankly, most of us just don't care for them. They're negative. (and what, I'm a saint in all of this? C'mon)

Thirdly, there is a big difference between thinking and knowing and what I know, for everyone reading this post, is that we don't have the right to judge "with sanction and punishment", anyone who is excercising the right to free will, even if its to hurt themselves, unless it leaves third party victims. This isn't only strongly implied in our Charter, it should be in our moral compass. Sorry if this just a bit too Aristotoic for a few.

And finally... the whole issue of beliefs concerning Atheism, of which, Allen, certainly hasn't posted anything that I've read in the last two weeks, other than attacks against me, and its getting old, because it suggests (outside of a high level of bitterness), that he has nothing more important to do with his life, so... Allen... get a life!

Its like this. For me personally, I have yet to run into an Athiest who can prove God doesn't exist. However, I have personally run into some very bizarre experiences that prove to me "in the extreme" that God does exist and if some of you want me to keep my opinions to myself, some of you had better wake up to the reality that most of your posts are filled with nothing but your own "opinions".

Having said this, I, like the majority of us, aren't much on people with double standards. I believe the religious word most often used, is... hyporcrite.

And finally, did anyone check out the latest on Derek Ziesman? They sure do a good job screening Cons candidates in BC, don't they?

No Stuart - You've responded to my legitimate commentary regarding someone in public life with a direct insult to me personally as a gay man.

You've done this before.

I was making a point comparing Robinson to other gay men in public life (Scrott Brisson, et. al.). You can disagree with me, but at least do so without spurious comments about my personal disposition.

I simply disagree with the perception that Svend has been a great saviour to the gay community. I've given you my reasons for doing so. I don't dislike him - I simply disagree with his tactics and his opinions on everything from Israel to national defence to the line separating civil disobedience from sedition. I just don't agree with him.

Stuart, you have to learn to debate issues without getting personally insulting to the people you're debating with. I'm not the only person who has pointed this out to you. It's deeply insulting to invalidate someone's legitimate opinions by targeting their race or sexual orientation. Visible minorities or gay people should be able to hold whatever reasoned opinions they want without having their "blackness" or "gayness" opportunistically taken away from them by those who happen to disagree. This has been a recurring tactic of the Left, and that line needs to be drawn.

nightbloom says

So we should give up because the other side is wrong headed, many in the Christian community think homo's are immoral and abnormal hence they don't want the word marriage used, yea those fags are together
but no , god no , their not married like us, not quite as normal as us.

Words are very powerful and I feel that Gay folks if they choose to get married deserve to be seen as equal as other Canadians, and so far that victory stands, as long as we keep the neo cons out of office.

I don't suppose you could consider the ramifications of a neo-con gov't for other people, if not yourself, could you? Maybe those senior citizens who will be abandoned at the side of the road?

Oh, Stuart. You're missing the point again.

I've already said I support gay marriage.

The point is that this whole approach to the extension of marriage has been very improvised & ad hoc all along. It's gone through several phases while social progressives tried to figure out what to do with it.

Suddenly gay marriage is being treated like it's been a long-cherished holy grail of our community. In fact, almost ALL of us are relatively recent converts to the idea. It's hardly surprising that some segments of society are still tepid about it. Let's be realistic.

Just in case I haven't said it often enough yet: I support gay marriage - I supported it way back when even the illustrious luminaries of gay activist Left didn't.

Regardless of what you think of Svend , he is not only a public figure he is also a person your comments were not based on policy but basic cheap shots at his personal nature.

Explain how this comment

Also don't try to be a victim, it doesn't wash . Your just a kind thoughtful person who takes cheap shots at others and then retreats, how is degrading someone for crying in public being kind and open. Svend if you like it or not is very effective and right on most issues, hence him getting reelected time and time again

As far as your opinion of me, not interested, your obviously not a good judge of Character.

You say

You can disagree with me, but at least do so without spurious comments about my personal disposition.

But you go on in your post to tell us all who you think has a fully - integrated personality. Your posts was no
different than mine, the only difference is you feel like a bigger victim.

Point taken nightbloom

Your have well though out posts but please make your point without taking cheap shots,
People like Svend are needed and appreciated by many, even if you don't like him.

OFF TOPIC:
Brain:
For atheists, I like to refer to them as "fundamentalist materialists", as they often tend to hang on to their belief system pit-bull like,just as any fundamentalist religionist does.
They like to claim they have science on their side while they conveniently ignore/deny SCIENTIFIC STUDIES with evidence that is contrary to their absolutist beliefs. For instance,generally the fundamentalist materialists deny all positive data on parapsychology, although there have been hundreds of studies by qualified scientists/academics showing compelling evidence for the reality of various aspects of
parapsychology. If they don't like what is being investigated they label it "pseudoscience". They even have a history of hounding scientists who dare study verboten subjects, launching campaigns to get them fired from universities, etc.
Robert Anton Wilson refers to this as "the new inquisition". CSICOP is the flagship organization of these inquisitors. Carl Sagan used to be one of their celebrity spokesmen.

It's primarily a white male phenomenon, as the CSICOP types mainly have that demographic,apparently, which has interesting implications.
I'd be curious to know if atheism in gen'l
is a belief held by white males more than any other group. I wouldn't be surprised.

(CSICOP = Commitee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
The problem is, they do not "scientifically investigate", as in replicating studies. No, to do so would make them "pseudoscientists". Instead they attempt to debunk :"Sloppy science! Fraud!")

On "the New Harper":
The Globe has an interesting article with some scepticism about Harper's supposed change/moderation of his views:

Quote:
"You can white-knuckle it through," said one senior Grit of the new serenity.

"But ultimately, most people don't change in their 40s."

Indeed, it was only six months ago that Mr. Harper told a Vancouver radio station that he didn't intend to bow to those who wanted him to transform himself.

"I don't intend to change myself," he said at the time, a month after backbencher Belinda Stronach left his party and the Conservatives had lost a crucial vote aimed at bringing down the government.

"I'm not a believer in these so-called image makeovers.

"I've watched politicians who tried to be something they're not and tried to have all these different incarnations. I think it just comes across as phony. I am who I am."

Mr. Harper has since taken to wearing turtlenecks and open-collared shirts on the campaign trail.

The other modifications have come in a willingness to listen to his handlers.

"We always, as political leaders, have to respect the fact that circumstances change and you have to deal with the real concerns of people and the real situations that are before us," Mr. Harper said.

Okay election night predictions

Ready

Lib 110 - They lose a few seats in Ont and Out West but nothing in Que or the east coast

Cons - 99 They seats they win in Ont are lost in Sask and BC

Bloc - 55 seats,

NDP - 44 seats - They pick up a couple on the east coast, a few in Ont, Sask and BC

Remember with only 1 or 2 % of the vote in 2004 they would have picked up say 15 more seats nationwide, they can easily bleed off 2 % Of liberal support.

Stuart, You never answered my questions about blacks who were freed from slavery by Christians shouldn't all be Christians, or Afghani people should love Americans because they freed them.
You are the worst bigot I ever ran into.
Why would anyone listen to you and vote NDP.
In fact you are so hung up on your delusional thoughts that socialism is the way to go and anyone, no matter of race, color, gender or creed, that would disagree with your lefty thoughts, are subhuman, that you have lost the teeny, tiny, insignificant amount of credibility you may have had at one time.

brain said

One can only ask why?

Stuart, Svend is a public figure, he cashes taxpayer cheques. Critisizing him should be considered a national sport. And so what if he cried in public? When him, Campbell and Bertuzzi did it I had a good laugh. Because all 3 cried for doing something they shouldn't have. Its like watching Jerry Springer, you're not supposed to feel for them. The people you should sympathize with are the victims, not the perpetrators.

Anyway, an American view of what they think of us using them as a bogey-man. Although, if you were going to have a bogey-man that Stars N Stripes guy would be a good one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011100929.html

I can get into this.

I have only one prediction. That if you don't count Quebec the NDP popular vote will be ahead of the Liberal popular vote.

I believe the Libs only have a 3 or 4 point lead on the NDP outside Quebec right now, and its falling.

On the other hand, negative ads are effective.

Stuart, I really can't make sense of where you're coming from. Nor do I want to drag everyone else on this thread through more of your nonsense.

Your comments about me personally were out of line, and had absolutely nothing to do with the points I was making.

My initial aside about Svend Robinson's policy positions and behaviour as a gay man in public office in comparison to the performance to other gay men in public life has been made by many people both within and outside of the gay community. I'm hardly alone in my take on this. What I'm saying is hardly an ad hominem attack on Robinson, although I suppose it does touch on his mental state (which he made into a public issue, and is legit fodder for discussion). That's hardly an ad hominem personal attack, contrary to your own commentary about me personally.

Just take my arguments at face value and tell me why you disagree with my comparison of Robinson to Brisson et. al. That would be legitimate argumentation on your part Stuart - just spare me the racist Pedro nonsense, the "gays-owe-Svend-so-much" schtick or the perverse attempts psychologize my political opinions based on your assumptions about the correlation between sexual orientation & political belief.

So let's quit boring everyone and get back to the topic of the thread.

Losers, that is what anyone who is still trying to smear Steven Harper is.
Why insult our next Prime Minister ?
I personally couldn't be happier with the way the election is going.
You can read posts like Stuart's and see why I am estatic.
The wheels have fallen off the Liberal campaign. And the only thing they can do is try to SCARE us.
I tell you whats scary, any possibility of the Liberals plus NDP seats that add up to a majority.
Thank God we don't have to face this nightmare possibility.
Bigots and racists will not lead this country like they have for the past 13 years.
Toronto NDP is dead and all you wimpy communists will have to deal with a conservative country. The worm has turned, and the worm is the left.

Stuart - Okay - Good man - I just saw your post 7 or 8 above this one.

Yarrow wrote: "Bluenose, I am a gay man who agrees with Jane Rule and her right to speak her mind."

Good for you and good for her. We should all be able to speak our mind.

"Gay marriage will still not solve the problem of hospital access rights for people who are not married."

It was never intended to nor did I ever imply that it was. It was intended to solve the problem of hospital access rights for same-sex partners who are now (at least for the time being) free to choose whether or not they wish to get married.

"If the lobby had been towards recognition of all domestic partnerships we might be closer to solving that problem."

And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. I am a pragmatist as well as an idealist.

I take what I can get whenever I can get it (provided it's what I want) but I continue to work for something better.

I wouldn't deny myself medication to alleviate the symptoms of a terminal illness until such time as a complete cure became available, and I wasn't about to deny myself the opportunity to marry my partner until such time as all domestic partnerships are given recognition. That would have achieved absolutely nothing.

Redrivergirl wrote: "The issue is a matter of civil rights. That's all!"

Exactly.

It is about choice and deliberation rather than about control, dependence, obedience and passive reception. It is about ownership and definition of the word "marriage" and about who gets to participate in it and who doesn't. It is the idea and institution of "marriage" being extended to same-sex couples which has almost alone inspired a surge in conservative activism in this country and which may well see the government of Canada taking away a right which it had previously granted. That there are gay men and lesbians who argue against same-sex marriage as a prerequisite to a world in which marriage itself no longer exists speaks volumes.

Frank
My understanding is that the candidate did not disclose to the party that he had been charged for the offence when he applied to be the candidate. Legally he is listed as the candidate and there is nothing they can do for now, but apparently they just dumped him from the party for not disclosing it.

I spent some time in Venezuela in 94, and yes it was one screwed up country, five families had a death grip on it. My brother (who was working down there) and I tried to bring in basic hand tools, but the corruption made it impossible.

I was actually happy that Chavez took at first, but I have a lot of concerns about his “revolution” These seem to take on a life of their own and become the reason rather than the tool. I hear stuff from both sides (I was getting running reports from somebody that was dodging bullets during the protests there) and my opinion that he is like many South American leaders who start out with good intention, but become the people they replaced, hence to reference to Bolivar and his seeds of thousand dictators. I guess we will see what happens come the elections. If Chavez willingly gives up power, then I am wrong and happy, but I suspect that I will be right and saddened for the people there, as I fear they will have to suffer through another decade of abuse.

Coyote spare me your Necon and traitor crap. I voted NDP for most of my adult life, belonged to a variety of unions and even helped out on campaigns. You brand me a traitor because I disagree with your view of life? Now that is scary. You want to attack what I say, that’s fine, but you seem to need to make it personal.

Andew Coyne used to advance the argument that marriage itself should be abolished from the public sphere. The state would simply stop according privileges according to one's participation in an intimate domestic partnership. Coyne has long since moved on to endorse gay marriage.

Notwithstanding some glaring problems his original proposal would create, it nevertheless demonstrates the divere variations-on-a-theme that the marriage debate has taken.

Colin,

last night on the CTV news it said the party was standing by him but ya, that was probably just the line given until they had time to actually check things out for themselves.

I've never been to Venezuela, but a guy I know worked down there on and off in the oil industry. He lived like a king when he was there but described the conditions for regular folk which sounded pretty bad. South American politics is so corrupt at the best of times I often will happily accept a dictator as long as the poor are better off than under the last dictator. Anyway, if Chavez loses I would expect him to give up power voluntarily like Ortega did in Nicaragua. Another place I thought was unfairly tarred with the Castro brush.

Ron Erwin, I love your trolling even though its too transparent even for me to respond to. Good stuff. You're in your happy place and with good reason. Enjoy.

Brain, for a LIAR who will not even admit it when caught, you certainly are into doublespeak.

So no one has been able to disprove "god" to you and you have a pocketful of miracles to prove there is one. Wow!

I see that is the same tack your redneck buddy barryjo trotted out above in his efforts to explain why fundamentalist christians have the right to hate gays.

I'd refer to you two as bookends if Bobb999 hadn't joined your crusade as well.

Look, Brine, rather than continuing to deny that you lied twice and were caught both times, why don't you simply admit you lied and apologize for it.

Surely you're adult enough to do that. I bet if you read your Christian bible you will find several references to liars and the terrible seeds of untruth they sow in all those dark corners.

And now Bobb999 has weighed in with his "fundamental materialist" theory to make up this unholy trinity of hate for anything different.

Note To Bobb666, I refer to myself as a humanist. I prefer to think of money grubbing Christian accountants as materialists.

Sorry if that seems like I'm crapping on your occupation though.

Perhaps you'll clarify your silly comments about various sciences to take into account my humanist failings now that you have been made aware I don't ascribe to your materialist bullshit.

I'd urge all three of you to let a little humanity into your life.

Who knows, the Brain might even find the decency to apologize.

Gay marriage also asserts, society recognizes that homosexuality is not a perversion. That being gay is a normal state for those who are gay. It legitimizes the state of being gay, which is another reason some are against it. I would imagine, if I were gay, that would be important to me. Goodness knows the 'feminine' has been reviled, de-legitimized long enough. How different it would be for women if our gov't and society reflected the positive aspects of the feminine without infantilizing or pathologizing it. But, I doubt that will ever happen in our life-times. And, at this time it's getting worse.

Like you? Fact is, the only emails you've provided in the last 3 weeks has been to bash me and that is nothing short of obsessive (makes me quite glad I didn't use my own name). And apologize? For what? your insults? I don't think so.

Re: comments were to Allen.

Funny coming from the man who insults our current Prime Minister.

I really hate all this talk of lefty and right wing. These are more ad hominem attacks. Go after the argument. I'm more left than right, but I have elements of right in me, too. As I said, everything ain't black and white. Also I'm more atheist than Christian, but I have elements of Christian in me, too. Also, not all lefties are atheists and not all right wingers are Christian. There are many good religious people on the left and many good atheists on the right.

Frank
I would believe it, having a foreign paycheck there was great and the woman there are stunning and like to look good, I remember meeting some “illegal miners” in the bush, the woman was up to her chest in mud panning for gold, but she had bright red lipstick on in case “Mister right” came around the bush.

It used to be one of the Latin America’s shining stars and it’s chock full of oil, minerals, gold , diamonds and lots of other resources. In fact everyone in Venezuela should be better off than your average Canadian. But it was corruption and those families that were killing the country. Funny they don’t produce much in the way of manufactured goods (Unless you want to count woman and music) and most of the real dirty work was being done by Illegal immigrants from the other nearby countries, as Venezuela was slightly less screwed up then their countries.

Generally good people, I really like traveling South America

To Frank: "After reading this thread" - good point. (I must confess... I skimmed) :-)

And Allen: If you want an apology, here it is. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm not sorry, however, to have hurt your intellectual pride. Its like this. Your belief is based on what you think... not what you know. You're guessing. I know it. But hey. To you, it just my opinion. Right? As for your claims of being a humanist, then why all of the personal attacks?

Once again, I don't think much of double standards, and I know I'm not alone, and how does this all relate to the article? How does posts on politics, religion and beliefs relate to the article? Because thats what this article is about.

Its about government MP wannabee's who are using their religious beliefs to give them a moral agenda to do what they want, and this strikes a chord against what the charter stands for, and what the majority of Christians stand for, I might add, which is the marriage of church and state.

Christ, its what killed him and so many who believe in him. And you, Allen, should be against this yourself, as any humanist would be, as we do have religious freedoms in this country, including the freedom to be Athiest, if this is what you so choose.

Nevertheless, as soon as any religion or belief, whether it is religious, political or otherwise, crosses the line of harmfully victimizing peoples choices, or free will, without any evidence of these free choices having victimizing anyone else but themselves... well... I happen to be a Canadian who believes in the true North Strong and Free, and if someone tries to make me a victim of it, I'll rub their noses in it, as best I can, and hats off to Tom Barrett and journalists like him, cause thats excactly what he's doing.

Bob9999 - you need to spend a little time at Randi.org

NoLeftNutter: That wouldn't be the (less than) AMAZING Randi.org, by chance, would it?

For a supposedly "scientific" org. like CSICOP to recruit a stage magician as one of their main fundamentalist materialist spokesmen (another old fat white man - CSICOP's full of 'em) is rather amusing in itself!

I'm not sure if allan thinks I'm Christian and/ or an accountant. Actually, I am neither.

Brain declares:

Yet in a post above he says:

And goes on to say:

So, Brain..which is it? You manage to state your moral repugnance for homosexuality, and in the same breath you admit these relationships can be loving. Is your moral compass near a magnet, or what?

And here's the kicker:

WTF?? Um, Brain, what kind of logic is that? Colour me intolerant, but you should consider adding "less" to your handle.

One last thing about the "not withstanding clause" in this discussion. Its a duel edged sword. Is anyone to think that the PM of this country doesn't have enough powers already, that the PM needs this clause as well? Beware of a majority Con government.

Our courts are here in this country to uphold the law, and make laws that protect the rights of all individuals. If the courts neglect to do this, it is likely the appointments of judges from PM's that created this environment to be begin with.

The arguement for keeping the "not withstanding clause" is if the courts make an "immoral decision" that doesn't reflect the charter of rights. To think for a moment, that the courts have any grounds in appeals or otherwise after a decision is made that goes against the charter, is moot!

Do we need the "not withstanding clause"? Only Stephen Harper and his kind would need such a clause. And meech lake and all of the other Mulroney hangovers we were given... Two distinct societies were legal grounds for separation. That's how close he was, and the rest of the country was willing to choose it to "heal".

This might, again, just be my opinion on it, but "its often better to sleep with the devil you know, than to lay in bed with the devil you don't." Take your pick. The guy who floats ships, or the guy who's never held a real job. The guy who threw the hail mary for the charter, or the religious western separatist who's against it.

And there just happens to be two other options! (Sorry, Jack Layton, you conveniently missed one) And free votes? Don't think for a minute that they are free. The party knows how all individuals vote, and its political suicide to be on the wrong side of leaders. And what, do we think most MP's aren't concerned about cabinet positions and such?
We had better start asking ourselves why its taken less than 2 weeks to ferret the Derek Zeismans (good strong Christian fellow he claimed to be) in this campaign, along with how many more there could be just like him. This is what we'll get for voting for colors. More just like him, and those named in this article.

To Tommymore: Another Brain fan. Once again, read who that post you refer to actually addresses. And do I need to give you color on what homosexual relationships are based on without the love?
And these clips of yours, taken out of context. Heres some color. What kind of individual would declare to himself and the world, "Believe in me! God doesn't exist!" After a mere 30 or 40 revolutions around the sun. It might be wise to be just a little agnostic over that one.

Hey, Bobb999:

Just got 13 books on Tao from the library, thanks again. On that note, you'll all just have to find other punching bags, or solve the worlds problems without me... for awhile.

Colin,

Well first, I am singularly unimpressed that you have in the past voted NDP. Which is why I am not overly impressed with the political labels many folks hang on themselves. I have come across goodly numbers of right wingers in the NDP actually-, as reactionary as any in the Conservative Party. Nope, I can't understand how y'all got there either. Ditto unions.

And oh, we are indeedy, on my side of the street, in a class war and social place where it is "personal" alright, make no mistake. But in an "objective" kind of way, if that's a concept you can grasp.

I never could tolerate scabs in a strike, nor the equivalent in the political arena. There's way too much nicey, nicey going on, when it's really a kind of war taking shape out here. Time for kicking ass, not playing kissy face.

My view.

Brain

Since when has the Courts in Canada made laws? Interpret, twist and strike down yes, but not to make them. That is the job of Parliament and the government. The Supreme court is there, because often the laws are poorly written and conflict with other laws or precedent. The supreme court is truly a case of : garbage in, garbage out.

I enforce a regulatory Act, and luckily it was first written in the 1800’s They actually were very good at writing law back then and economical with words. Modern law making is far sloppier in my view and often a Act of Parliament becomes voluminous to the point where it contradicts itself or another Act.

The courts are important but the judges are the creatures of the government that selects them, if a bunch of Judges die or leave during a right wing government, those judges could be interpreting the law in a way much different than the ruling party.

Frankly it’s good for any piece of machinery to have a “stop button” I do agree it should be lightly used.

From what I read, Martin’s college roommate wrote the clause, lets face it the only reason martin is doing this is try to damage Harper with it, but it’s really doing Martin more harm than good.

THe article mentions a few of the more vocal Christian fundamentalists but estimates peg their penetration of the Conservative party to as high as 90% and the Liberal to 15%. A lot of these are Boulder Colorado based Alliance church members.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/discouraging-victory.shtml

No definite numbers are available as we have no investigative journalists in the country. The media is much more concerned with Angelina and Jennifer than this hijack of our political system in what is essentially treason.

These fundamentalists I call "Leviticans" as they seem to pick that part of old testament -Gay Marriage Womens rights etc- whenever quoting scripture and there is none of the New Testament teaching of love, forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance in their religion. "Not Christians" is another term oft heard in US liberal media.

Reports from the United States indicate a concerted effort to follow up church takeovers of the Republican party with a one of the Democratic partyl. Given the way most Democrat politicians vote (patriot act, war in Iraq) they may have already succeeded. When the Alliance Church plans constituency hijacks, there is no reason why the preacher man can't send part of his flock to buy masses of Liberal party memberships as well as Conservative. The articles reference to Alliance Church members Cindy Silver and Don Bell as well as the current 15% liberal party fundamentalist penetration is an example of the success of this tactic.

The danger here is that Harper wins a majority. In a Canadian majority situation Harper would have more power than Josef Stalin. He can use the notwithstanding clause if he pleases. He would have 5 years to implement a theocracy and by the next election it would be too late. A womans right to choose would be ended a week after the house sits. Gay people not only won't be getting married but the marriage registry could be used to send them to concentration camps at the Prime Ministers Harper's whim. Osama Bin Laden has had to hijack airplanes in a effort to establish his religious state, Stephen bin Harper and his fundamentalist chorus line has had only to hijack a political party.

Brain, you didn't hurt my feelings one iota and I certainly wasn't seeking an apology for your brutish or obsessive ways. We expect that of you.

It's those little lies that are the real bedbugs here.

The compounded lies that say so much about your character to say nothing about your increasngly bizarre behaviour here on Tyee in recent days as you lash out at all perceived slights.

I'd recommend you stop in your neighbourhood pharmacy and have your blood pressure checked and then make an appointment to see if a doctor will give you something to reduce those stress factors that seem to bring out the worst of Mr Hyde in you.

Now, let me make it perfectly clear. I am not attacking you.

The fact base is this: You lied in a post about words you attributed to me. I called you on it.

You replied with a second lie that made the issue all the more telling.

I responded by noting it was the second such lie in your efforts to deny your own words.

I waited four days for you to do the right thing. You didn't.

I then insisted you apologize and since you appeared to be hiding from me I began to post my quest for your apology on posts where you had recently written.

No attacks, nothing underhanded, almost christian in my patience waiting for you to come clean, wouldn't you think?

In fact the only attacks here were from you when you rode onto Tyee looking for atheists to slay.

BTW, if you do get into see a doctor tell him about how obsessive you have become. Better still point him to Tyee and I'm sure he too will see your problem just as many others have already pointed out to you.

I already exhausted myself on the religious issue on the "War on Christmas" thread (good grief!), but just to toss in two items of trivia relating to Christianity & homophobia...

1) the evangelicals use the "abomination" passages of Leviticus as their main scriptural basis for rejecting homosexuality. It's an obscure section dealing with the Temple Code of ritual purity meant to pertain exclusively to the priestly caste (Levites). The stricure against homosexual activity is included among a full range of practices that were verboten to "the pure" who were intended to be the custodians of the Holy of Holies. Other restrictions on this list that were considered impure & self-polluting was the wearing of certain fabrics, and other sundry criteria which woudn't make immediate sense to us today. Secondary use is made by evangelicals of the Sodom & Lot story, in which the old interpretation went like this: Lot's house was beset by a mob who wanted to rape his male visitors (who were actually angels), so Lot made a show of offering his daughters to the mob in order to save the purity of his guests. This is also the passage which radical feminists have illogically used to demonstrate the Bible's alleged approval of female rape. In actual fact, the story now has an accepted meaning which differs from all of the above interpretations.

2) In contrast to the evangelicals, the Roman Catholic Church never refers to these passages anymore, following today's accepted understanding that the old interpretation is not theologically sound. Instead, their anti-gay rationale is based on the Natural Law theory pioneered by Thomas Aquinas, and carried on today by John Finnis. The post-Vatican II ruling cadre at the Vatican are very much disciples of the Natural Law Tradition. It's actually a very fascinating intellectual & ethical construct, although totally unviable as a basis for public policy in the modern age.

Of course, trying to reason with either variety of homophobia is usually pretty useless...even if you do a good job countering their arguments on their own intellectual turf (believe me I've tried). That's because both rationales (scriptural & philosophical) are really fronts for a deep-seated pre-rational revulsion that can't be countered using reasonable discussion of the givens.

Piss off! He was with People's Popular Front of Judea!

Heh heh!

Now which one of you is Brian?

Well, one way to consider that Canada is less homophobic than the US, and especially as the B admin is beating the war drum into Iran right now, is that gays are allowed in the military. If Harper gets in, that can give you and comfort on your way there.
And, I'm pretty sure they let all you Libertarians in too. And, lest you think age will help you, look south.

Careful what you wish for...

One of the great rights we women were 'granted' too. Rather than the 30% it would take for us to have wage parity.

I think there are some complicating elements in the way of the timetable and scenario which you create, especially in a minority Conservative government situation, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility-, in the right/wrong circumstances. (Say a BC style, Conservative led, Conservative-Liberal alliance. Everyone tends to assume it is the NDP that is going to wind up holding the balance of power, when it ain't necessarily so, I think. In fact, the liberal Libs are already under a lot of pressure from their own internal neoconservative faction, which is what was really behind the expulsion of Sheila Cops, Parrish and other small "l" Liberal elements early in Martins rise out of Chretien's ashes.)

Still, your post is an interesting and informative read. And it certainly is in play as one of the elements of this current neocon/quasi-fascist period, throughout North America. It is fundamentalist Christianity in the west feeling threatened by Evolutionist secularism, and feeling similarly compelled to rise up against it and its self-created bogeyman, fundamentalist Mohammedism. And if religion, especially large elements of Christianity ain't nothing else, it's traditional conservative, quickly capable of becoming rabid social conservative. Conservative. (Enter Stockwell Day.)

Really though, it is all part of the camouflage of social elements, utilizing the most manipulatible backward looking and supersticious belief factions, playing them like a puppet master from out of sight, as the smokescreen behind which the most reactionary ruling class elements are moving and maneuvering to control and reshape the post war social, class and economic reality of capitalism. (Fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain played the Catholic Church and other religious elements in the same way, in its rise to power.)

Been rather busy to reply. Ed Broadbent is running in the Ottawa Centre riding.

http://www.edbroadbent.ca/

I served in the military between university degrees - in the Infantry no less (with small arms coaching as my secondary trade specialization). I actually found it to be a very tolerant environment, although there was an ever-present code of self-restraint & discipline which governed everyone's behaviour. There's no way a ban on gays would ever fly with Canada's top brass or the officer corps today.

Most of the Canadians in uniform today are recruited right out of the same universities & colleges you and I attended, so they went through the exact same process of socialization.

Beyond the expected potty-humour, relatively good-humoured adolescent sex jokes and the usual horseplay to be found in a men's barracks, I can't think of a single instance in which I felt genuinely & maliciously targeted because of my homosexuality. I also wasn't the only one, so that helped too.

Hey I wonder where that hot conservative chick from Edmonton-Spruce Grove sits on the whole "swinger/sex-club" issue??
All I'm saying is that I could definetly see her in a pleather cat-women costume with a
cat-o-nine tails!!!!
Combine those picassoesque physical attributes with the merciless acumen of reform party hard-liner and voila!...the ultimate domanatrix!!!
(Just ask stevo where he got those welts on his back side!)

Well, aren't you worried about going to Iran if Harper gets in, Nightbloom? I don't know how old you are, but in the US they're sending people way to old in history. You as one who served in the military would be one of the first.

You have to know the B admin is leading up to either unleasing terrible weapons on them, or going in. They can't do it with the troops they have now because Iran has an airforce.

That'll be news to Paul Dewars then

http://www.pauldewar.ca/

Now which one of you is Brian?

I'm Spartacus!

We have been under Torie and Liberal rule for long enough I think the NDP should have acrack at it. They can't do any worse, they have Lawyers Drs and business people in their ranks to plus other real people...

No, I'm not worried in the slightest. It's not going to happen.

Yes, I'm quite young enough to serve. Part of me has always wished I'd stayed in uniform rather than becoming a policy wonk. The job satisfaction, camaraderie & deep sense of belonging that I experienced in the Canadian military just doesn't compare to a civilian desk-jockey career.

The capability gap between U.S. forces and the national militaries of virtually all their allies (except the British, with their superb armed forces) means that we'd be more of a liability to the Americans than a boon on the battlefield. We're good at support operations. Nevertheless, we did have Canadian soldiers serving in American ranks during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They were quietly ignored by the Canadian media & politicians. These were participants who were already in place as part of pre-existing exchange programs and were given the choice to remain with their American colleagues when hostilities broke out.

Old news but here is the Globe's salute to Ed Broadbent's last days in the House.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060103.wnationbuilders/BNStory/National/

Redrivergirl
Why would you claim America is more homophobic than Canada ? What information do you have to support this ?
According to you America is worse than Canada in everything.
Did you know that Americans give 10 times more to charities than Canadians ?

Brain:
13 books on the Tao? I'm sure you'll find some that speak to you.
That reminds me, I have neglected books awaiting,'cause I spend too much time on the computer always trying to catch up on current events and stocks (mainly 'cause I got pushed into independent trading as a kind of vocation - as my prior field dried up).
I should find a better balance.
Too much focus on the transitory!
BTW It's too bad George Bush, Stephen Harper,Saddam, Osama and others never studied Lao Tzu. He viewed war as an unglorious evil to be avoided, never to be celebrated.
No "mission accomplished".

That's because due to their policies thay have at least 10 times as many people requiring charity.

Well they do suck in hockey Ron. I admit they blow us away in basketball although I have yet to hear why I would care.

On gays and the military:

I heard a shocking story once from someone I used to know quite well which I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve. This guy would not make stuff like this up. I heard the story 15 years ago. This fellow had been in the army 10 or 12 years previous, stationed at Cold Lake, Alta.He was a private at the time.

There was a gay French Canadian soldier who
had an unpleasant habit of molesting other young soldiers at night simply by reaching under bedsheets when they were asleep.
He would not desist even after threats and warnings. He was hated for this. Some of the soldiers went to their sergeant to ask what
could be done. He told them "You guys know what to do", as in take the law into your own hands.
One day the gay soldier was cornered in the shower by a large group. A number of them carried broom sticks. They beat him to death.
The army covered it up. The death was ruled accidental, that he had slipped on a bar of soap, hit his head and died.
How could multiple blows from blunt objects
possibly look like a simple fall?
It was a conspiracy to cover up the murder or manslaughter of a gay soldier in the Cdn Army.
The fellow who told me the story was present as a witness, and saw the entire incident. He too participated in the cover up by staying quiet
about what really occurred.

I am not sure of the point of the story told by Bob999, or even if we can believe it.

Been too busy to read the website you cite, too, I guess. Nowhere on that site does it say he's running again. This does, though: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/169/

Of course, the reigning NBA MVP is a Victoria boy.

Well Working Man, just where did you find this info about Broadbent running?

I'm curious because it seems everyone but you is aware there is another NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre.

Broadbent announced months ago he would not run again due to the illness of his spouse. Even Stephen Harper had nice things to say about him when he left.

Thanks for the clarification Frank.

Actually I wish you were correct Working Man because some of these reform-Conservative types would probably be well served if they listened to a bit of Broadbent's wisdom before they start shooting themselves in the foot in front of millions.

"Been rather busy to reply. Ed Broadbent is running in the Ottawa Centre riding."

LOL, Working Man!!! You are freaking funny. Get a clue buddy!

So-called Working Man blows it again. Even on the site he cites, nothing at all said about Broadbent running. But then this dude is only ever known to be "right" in one context anyway.

Dohhh!

Wrong again, honey.

Jeez, I want to comment on a post made by Stuart way back up there.

Real gay men do this, real gay men don't do this..

I'm not sure who the fake gay men are. I aspire to be metro, so I'm not sure if I'm a fake gay man or a fake straight man, probably the later (i sometimes jest that i'm a non-practicing gay) but boy, was that one of the most far out posts. I guess it kind of reopens the nature versus nurture debate, and is someone born a Dipper/Tory or raised one?

I just think its ironic how self righteous some of these posts gets. For all its prehistoric boneheads, at least Focus on the Family thinks homosexuality can be cured. By that, I mean they seperate judgement of people from judgement of acts. Many conservatives and theocons may be set in their ways and fail to react to a changing world, but I find its often the so-called progressive forces that are just as bad or worst when it comes to recognizing that circumstances and nurture is exactly what makes us very different people. They become so against something, they remind me of those kids in elementary school who would plug their ears and make "nanana" sounds. Don't get me wrong, I have just as strong words to people who pick up the bible and tell me that the words of God are absolute and they know it in their heart, and that our society must conform to it.

Whether one is grit, dip, communist, anarchist, libertarian, capitalist, enviromentalist, fundamentalist, it is because of the information we have been fed and how we have processed it. We may have some genetic traits that affect how we process it, but even in our chosen ideologies, no one group is homogenous. Not all NDPers care about the environment, not all conservatives are social conservatives, Harper isn't Bush, Canada isn't the US and will not in the next 50 years become part of it no matter who is running today.

Also BTW, found the speech Harper has been condemned for calling Canada a Northern European Welfare state in the worst sense of the term. Its actually more a pretty funny speech given to a US conservative Christian Group which mixes satire with the subtle ironies of politics in Canada. Whether you like Harper or not, you have to at least admit hes probably one of the more savy politicians.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_text_051214/20051214/

Dangrice: "For all its prehistoric boneheads, at least Focus on the Family thinks homosexuality can be cured."

And, you think this is a good thing?

Seth

Harper will have more power than Stalin? Hello!

Yes he will be opening up gulags in the NWT on Jan 24th and shipping everybody who voted Liberal there as well as moving the people of Vancouver to Labador.

Some of the estimates on people that died under Stalin’s rule is in excess of the present population of Canada, time to do some reading.

Redrivergirl

Invading Iran? Ha! The US standing army can barely maintain troop levels in Iraq. Have you ever looked at a map of Iran? It is a huge country with naturally defensible terrain. It also is in the area of influence that Russia claims and would be considered a threat to them.

Although the Iranian army could not defeat the US army in direct combat, it could maul them and even with the destruction of the Iranian army the US would still be forced to withdraw for logistical reasons. Tehran would be Bush’s Moscow.

In order to maintain a standing army of 125,000 in the Iraq, the US needs nearly 375,000 troops, 1/3rd in Iraq, 1/3 returning, 1/3rd preparing to go overseas to Iraq.

On top of this the US also has to maintain other significant forces in other parts of the world.

You may not like the CIA but there Factbook webpage is useful

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

I can't believe the shere idiocy inherent in the just-published recommendations to the Justice Minister to lift state sanctions against polygamy...recommendations advanced by the luninaries at Status of Women and the Justice Department itself.

It's not even the issue itself that bugs me so much. It's the fact that we're in the middle of an election campaign inwhich the "gay marriage" issue is a prominent & contentious issue, against which the standard argument usually goes something like: "polygamy & bestiality is next..."

How much air have social progressives expended over the past several years trying to reassure social conservatives that polygamy is not next??

Moreover, polygamy has grave and far-reaching implications for society than the wonks at Justice and the feminist ideologues at Status of Women are admitting (seeing as they've based their argument exclusively on the social welfare issues of the immigrant women in these "marriages", rather than on the potential long-term impact on society at large. How short-sighted).

I swear. When the liberal-Left gets on a social engineering kick, it really can't tell its arse from its elbow. What pure idiocy...and absolutely idiotic timing. Whoever chose to submit these recommendations at this time should be publicly flogged.

Okay - that's my rant for the morning.

Oh, yes, Nightbloom, we really think it was the left who dropped the polygamy comment. lol And, feminists are for polygamy. rofl

And, Colin,
The terrain and situation in Iran is why the concern about unleashing terrible weaponry, first.

The point is the admin keeps beating the war drum. With Canada on board with H at the helm, what do you thin our position will be? I think we know.

Dan, satire indeed. It ought to be though.

redrivergirl

Of course Bill Clinton would never had resorted to firing off cruise missiles to punish a country.

You also stated “going to Iran” hence the thrust of my post.

nightbloom, your rant was silly and, frankly over the top.

The recommendation to decriminalize polygamy is just that, a recommendation by experts who obviously have delved a bit deeper into the social issue than your did before popping off here.

At the risk of setting you aflame here once again, I'd suggest you quit looking at the world through old biblical lenses and start to realize we live in a very complex world.

If you have read the article in the Globe&Mail today you'll notice the authors stating that polygamy is virtually never prosecuted in Canada.

In fact, it is all but ignored until an issue flairs up as it might in all manner of non-conventional relationships.

So if the government doesn't want to throw people in jail for having multiple spouses, then why can't the participants in these partnerships not have the same financial rights of as partners in relationships.

You know, division of assets and all.

As an acknowledged gay man I would think you might have a tiny grasp of what fellow gays and lesbians suffered in Canada when it was illigal to have same sex relations.

Who else would you include in your criminalization process and would stoning or flogging be the prime means of atonement?

A note on Iran, apparently their “peaceful” nuclear program is now being administrated by the Revolutionary Guard instead of the appropriate civil administration, hmmm.

Iran is going to be a major embarrassment to the European policy makers when they announce that they have a nuclear weapon.

Colin, it does make me wonder how strident the Iranians would be if the most powerful country in the world had not in the past four years illegally invaded two of its neighbours, using weapons of mass destruction both as a reason to attack and as a mean of submission, all the while describing you as the third spoke in an "axis of evil."

While I would dearly love to see Iran move away from such madness, the fact is it's major foe has the greatest stockpile of nuclear weapons and delivery systems on earth and its officials have stated they will use them if they decide they are required.

As scary as you may find it that the Revolutionary Guards are in control if Iran's nuclear development programs, it pales beside the thought of Donald Rumsfeld or VP Cheney being within a million miles of the Pentagon.

allan
Good points regarding Iran’s views, however they claim that the program is for “peaceful purposes” so why not leave it in the hands of the appropriate authorities?

I think it is clear that they intend to create a Nuke and a delivery system that can reach Israel. This will give the belief they are safe from invasion and a strike from Israel’s secret undeclared nukes. I don’t really fear 90% of the Iranian or even most of the religious leaders as they have always had a pragmatic and survivor oriented view which precludes the use of nukes. However the revolutionary guards are the nutty cousins of Iranian politics and might go off and do something stupid without considering the consequences, as they feel their reward waits for them in Heaven.

Gawd, I just can't believe that Stockwell Day is still a prominent member of the Tories.
Sure as hell he will be made a minister of whatever if the Conservatives come to power.

In fact, I thought Randy White was a reasonably intelligent individual until he became one of Day's biggest supporters.

Politics is strange! Such stringent 'running' qualifications seem to be demanded by the Conservatives however they have such a weird assortment of people with them.

Which is exactly the point. It is the US that has ratcheted up hostilities worldwide and created strange and dangerous bedfellows through its aggressively corporate-laced style of imperialism...shamelessly masked under the guise of a war on terrorism.

Hersh wrote a year ago now that the US was running secret missions into Iran to collect intelligence with the aid of both Pakistan and Israel...and that there were detailed plans for air attacks. A deal with the devil made in terms of Pakistan...intelligence info in exchange for the US ignoring Pakistan's own nuclear build-up.

It is Rummy's methodology of war towards this axis of evil that is the real scary part...

"He is sending in covert teams, that is, the word they use inside is "wiped clean." The soldiers are wiped clean. Their IDs are totally non-American and non-military. They're going in to make contact with groups inside various countries, set up operations, trying to do some war games, some terrorism themselves. .. We're not going to be telling the American ambassador in the country. We're not going to be telling the CIA station chief. It's going to be done by Rummy and his people. That's a huge shift, an unprecedented shift, in the last 60 years."

"What we are doing is we're sending in teams that are completely disguised as terrorists, and the CIA has a number of rules they have to live by, (including) they cannot have their assets, their people, posing as journalists or clerics. And there's no such rules for the Pentagon. So, you know, the military people going in could be journalists, they could be religious people, they could be plain tourists undercover."

Oh, what a tangled bloody mess of a web being woven there.

Colin, I never said I thought FOF was a good thing. I meant that you can disagree with how someone lives their lives or thinks politically without condemning the person.

Colin, everyone claims their weapons and technology are for peaceful purposes. Some even have the audacity to suggest the weapons are meant for liberation and freedom, as though an ideal requires gunpowder to ignite.

dangrice, I think you mixed me up or our posts up as I don't think I commented on focus on the family.

Colin: Thanks for the correction. The government does pass the laws in this country... still, its the courts responsiblilty to interpret these laws and pass sentence, either way. The courts own interpretation of these laws sets the course of tolerance, (et.el. min. max sentencing, admissible evidence) until laws are passed to become more specific, so, for now, the governments and courts both have their roles to play in judgment.

The relevance of all of this in relation to the banning gay marriages is simple. Marriage or union between two individuals is a contract based entirely on an ideal. This ideal is carried out with vows, committments made in front the families, friends, God, the world, the works, to support and stay together, as two identities, becoming one, and unfortunately, at this time, the majority of heterosexual marriages aren't working out.

Never mind the promises we can't keep. To think that heterosexuals have the right to claim ideals of marriage to be solely their own, and not belong to individuals of any kind, is falsely based, as any two individuals can pursue these ideals, regardless of what their sexual orientation is.

What, is the failure for any individual or group to fulfill the pursuit or promises to ideals, the grounds to do away with the institution of marriage? Should we scrap the pursuit of ideals to begin with? The cons think we would remove certain groups from the ideals of marriage do to their own brand of ideals, to be sure.

What should we scrap next... Scrap the ideals of love, of trust, of partnership, of commitment, because the majority of us are, at this point in time, not living up to, or deciding against it?

Scrap the ideals of God, of nature, of purity, of good and bad, right and wrong, because it doesn't suit some of our own individual wants? Some of us are crossing a dangerous line.

Its like describing love or any other emotion for that matter, to be nothing than neuron synapses and gland squirts, because that's all it is, on a scientific level to them, or to base the belief's in God as moot, due to life's scientifically proven, evolutionary changes needed to adapt to changing environments, challenging dumbass creation theorists, who believe its all a snap of a finger.

To base beliefs on half truths, is nothing more than a suckers play. To declare the existence or non-existence of God or otherwise, based on half truths... Who will find their true selves, or truth to their origins, without honesty, without exhaustive personal search, without hard work, without courage to face the truth itself?

You Allen? Are you going to be the one to lecture me on honesty or forgiveness? When I see it from you, or the rest of you, I'll listen and some of you have me listening. Meanwhile, the rest of you just have me shaking my head.

Dangrice: "Colin, I never said I thought FOF was a good thing. I meant that you can disagree with how someone lives their lives or thinks politically without condemning the person."

No, but you did say: "For all its prehistoric boneheads, at least Focus on the Family thinks homosexuality can be cured."

That isn't a condemnation of homosexuals? What if someone said that black people could be cured? That isn't offensive to you? I'm sorry, I don't get your point.

Is this campaign crazy or what?

Abbotsford NDP candidate accused the Liberal candidate of bribery - in a staunchly Conservative riding. One of the offers was to take NDP candidate Jeff Hansen-Carlson to dinner at a local KFC. A local KFC??????
Big spenders indeed!!!
But no wonder. Their hope of unseating a conservative candidate in Abbotsford is nil.
And, as far as the conservatives are concerned - if they form the next government - Stockwell Day is promised a ministership. Here is a man who's intelligence was in question when head of the Reformers a few years ago.
What's going on? Are voters that dumb?

Brain, I don't give lectures on honesty, but I will certainly defend myself when you attribute false statements to me.

As for forgiveness, I tried to open a door for you yesterday when I asked you to at least acknowledge the error of your ways.

It remains open, but I can't drag you through it.

You Brain are the person who presented allegations against me, yet have been unable to provide one shred of actual evidence, instead suggesting that someone at the Tyee desk erased all my nasty comments.

Surprisingly, I have no problem finding old nasty things I stated still clinging to sentences in the Tyee archives.

Yet no one can find the alleged words you claim I attacked nightbloom with. And frankly, nightbloom certainly never raised any concerns.

I would humbly suggest I'm the aggrieved here, but I want neither the biblical eye for an eye nor the more secular pound of flesh.

I don't even want an apology anymore, just an acknowledgement you went beyond the bounds.

Am I asking too much?

Its funny how they all get that one wrong, "eye for an eye" in scripture. Its an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, in terms of swallowing and grinding truths, and seeing for seeing, or a level of awareness met with a level of awareness. This beats flipping burgers in each others back yard (although sometimes, just barely).

You and eye (as a jest in humor) are of two different stages in our lives, yet we have several things in common, regardless of how we got there. I, too, am privy to a socialist view, or as righties try to define their superiority over lefties, as a lefty for equality, just like yourself. And, I too, have a fervor for strong emotions.

As for allegations on what's been said both ways, I do have a problem finding that old war on Christmas thread, cause I can't find it! I can only go by memory, and, as stated in an earlier post, I remember some rants that were... sketchy both ways, to put it mildly, but this was 3 weeks ago, dude. And nightbloom is used to being shit on due to predjudices thrown his way, but take my word for it. He's got feelings. The guy swims deep. Anyways, its old news, I'm glad this is an old thread to air it. We both know that to go from thread to thread with old baggage is, well, inappropriate. So, in windy fashion, Ill change the subject and say this much, in terms of single standards.

Any honest man is capable of fallacies. They just aren't capable of lies. I'll tell you today, what I've told you in the past. I'm honest! But not perfect. Since your tone has changed, and since the tyee doesn't deserve to hear us go off at each other on a daily basis, and since, I sense that you aren't a terrible man at heart... go in peace... but remember.

If an article comes up that has specific themes that touches buttons, be they religious, political or otherwise, I'm going to voice my opinion, hopefully without injury to those who didn't have it coming. That's what we do here. Voice opinions. Hopefully to learn.
And honesty? We can trust one friend with our car, but can't trust the same friend with our wives. We can trust one with a secret, but maybe not a wallet. There are levels and degrees of trust. When the double standards are removed... and the single standards remain frozen... an old identity dies, leaving a new identity to be formed that is unchangable.

Take heed to form an identity that has principles kept, always, with the open mind that got you there, but be warned. In searches for truth, we will always encounter half truths, fallacies and lies in disguise of the truth, itself. The wise test it to see if its real. Fools take its value at face. My truce is real. Go in peace.

Brain, well put.

Yes we see much from the same light and I encourage you to speak your mind, just as I and most others do here.
You have shown you have much to offer including some things I don't agree with.

But without disagreement we never learn to appreciate what really is truth.

Worry not, I fully appreciate the difference between truth and fact. A friend recently emailed me a new word called truthiness.

What that means is the truth you, I or others broadcast, which we individually hold to be just that.

Unfortunately I and, I think others, will often not be able to add one iota of fact to our own "truths", therefore things are true in the sense we honestly beleive they are, but missing that vital aspect called fact.

Thus the information is merely truthiness as real truth comes loaded with the works, wrinkles and all.

I look forward to putting the past back where it belongs.

Darrel Reid is a candidate in the Richmond riding, not Surrey as was stated in this article.

Darrel Reid is the target of a number of negative campaigns put out by three different groups in the local Richmond area, myself heading up one of them. My own registered 3rd party campaign has ads running in both major Richmond newspapers and on Google country wide.

See http://dalejackaman.ca

I don't care what the Conservative handlers say, Darrel Reid has been muzzled. Either that or he's running for the all time media record of "not available for comment" and the fastest time out the back door whenever a TV crew shows up. When he is available it's all message box and nothing else. Something smells awfully fishy in Conservative land to me.

Dale

Stockwell Day as Minister of Foreign Affairs?

That scenario could fit into one of two categories.

Hilarious
or
Scarey

I watched him on Studio 2 the other night. He's a freakin' moron. I'd say he's a bullshit artist, too, except he's not good enough at it to be called an artist. But he tries.

I wonder if he'll take his Seadoo to Iraq.

And c'mon, anyone who seriously thinks some Conservative Party candidates aren't being muzzled is obviously in denial. You right-wingers are all holding your breath, now that you're so close, hoping that one of the loonies doesn't start shooting his/her mouth off in public and blow it all once again.

And the other 75% is bullshit.

anybody but harper

"Following his victory, the riding president quit, complaining that the Conservatives were "getting dangerously close" to being overtaken by the religious right."

Sound familiar to the "moral majority" of the "religious right" in the US? Has anybody taken notice that the civil liberties in the US have been degraded, ever since Nixon won his election? Since 1968, there have been 12 years of Democratic Presidencies and 25 years of Republican control, now especially in the House and Senate, and the ensuing lack of protecting minority rights have been abmismal.

Ever wonder why the old "Red Tories", people like Joe Clark, have resigned from the party, in disgust? Even "Joe Who" threw his support against the party, and tried in vain to scuttle the merger between the Reform/Alliance and his old Progressive Conservative Party. There is nothing "Progressive" left in the Canadian Conservative Party, all regressive.

Speaking of our old favourite Neanderthal, Randy White, don't you suppose Harper told him that he was all done, don't bother to file papers for another run as a candidate, because he, Harper, would refuse to sign it, retire in peace, we don't need loose cannons such as you.

Whoever is in charge of the Neo's election campaign this go-around sure has them all polished up, new image, more appealing to the easily swayed electorate, and with right-wing media, such as CanWest in their corner, how can they lose. The old saying "The Proof is in the Pudding" will be seen, once they form a government, I'm just hoping that it's a minority one, and Harper does allow free votes in the House, that will give the voters a taste of what's to come, should they be foolish enough to give them a majority.

Don F.