JerrySeinfeld

Bumf. Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No you see, this is not marriage. It's discrimination because it's not the same thing at all. Gay couples want to be the same as heterosexual couples, when for obvious reasons they're not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're missing a very obvious point. Gay couples AREN'T the same as heterosexual couples. They are HOMOSEXUAL couples. My question is: why don't we enact a law changing the deifinition of the word "HETEROSEXUAL". It's equally as absurd.

I don't see it as making an accusation. I see it as drawing the obvious inference. Liberals (mismanagement notwitstanding) express and act upon a clear commitment to universal public care. The NDP position is equally clear. Only the tories have supporters and related think tanks and policy debates around changing those aspects of our system. No, you certainly cannot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read it and weep. Below is a direct exerpt from the supreme court ruling. These lines state clearly that NO witness produced by the Quebec government was able to convince the court in ANY WAY that a parallel private system would in ANY way harm the public system. Lines 64-66 state this very clearly. Got a complaint? Take it up with the highest court in the land. 62 As can be seen from the evidence, the arguments made in support of the position that the integrity of the public system could be jeopardized by abolishing the prohibition can be divided into two groups. The first group of arguments relates to human reactions of the various people affected by the public plan, while the second group relates to the consequences for the plan itself. 63 (i) Human reactions 1. Some witnesses asserted that the emergence of the private sector would lead to a reduction in popular support in the long term because the people who had private insurance would no longer see any utility for the public plan. Dr. Howard Bergman cited an article in his expert report. Dr. Theodore Marmor supported this argument but conceded that he had no way to verify it. 2. Some witnesses were of the opinion that the quality of care in the public plan would decline because the most influential people would no longer have any incentive to bring pressure for improvements to the plan. Dr. Bergman cited a study by the World Bank in support of his expert report. Dr. Marmor relied on this argument but confirmed that there is no direct evidence to support this view. 3. There would be a reduction in human resources in the public plan because many physicians and other health care professionals would leave the plan out of a motive for profit: Dr. Charles D. Wright cited a study done in the United Kingdom, but admitted that he had read only a summary and not the study itself. Although Dr. Marmor supported the assertion, he testified that there is really no way to confirm it empirically. In his opinion, it is simply a matter of common sense. 4. An increase in the use of private health care would contribute to an increase in the supply of care for profit and lead to a decline in the professionalism and ethics of physicians working in hospitals. No study was cited in support of this opinion that seems to be based only on the witnesses’ common sense. 64 It is apparent from this summary that for each threat mentioned, no study was produced or discussed in the Superior Court. While it is true that scientific or empirical evidence is not always necessary, witnesses in a case in which the arguments are supposedly based on logic or common sense should be able to cite specific facts in support of their conclusions. The human reactions described by the experts, many of whom came from outside Quebec, do not appear to me to be very convincing, particularly in the context of Quebec legislation. Participation in the public plan is mandatory and there is no risk that the Quebec public will abandon the public plan. The state’s role is not being called into question. As well, the HEIA contains a clear provision authorizing the Minister of Health to ensure that the public plan is not jeopardized by having too many physicians opt for the private system (s. 30 HEIA). The evidence that the existence of the health care system would be jeopardized by human reactions to the emergence of a private system carries little weight. 65 (ii) Impact on the public plan 1. There would be an increase in overall health expenditures: the alleged increase would come primarily from the additional expenditures incurred by individuals who decide to take out private insurance; the rest of the increase in costs would be attributable to the cost of management of the private system by the state. 2. Insurers would reject the most acute patients, leaving the most serious cases to be covered by the public plan. 3. In a private system, physicians would tend to lengthen waiting times in the public sector in order to direct patients to the private sector from which they would derive a profit. 66 Once again, I am of the opinion that the reaction some witnesses described is highly unlikely in the Quebec context. First, if the increase in overall costs is primarily attributable to the individual cost of insurance, it would be difficult for the state to prevent individuals who wished to pay such costs from choosing how to manage their own finances. Furthermore, because the public plan already handles all the serious cases, I do not see how the situation could be exacerbated if that plan were relieved of the clientele with less serious health problems. Finally, because of s. 1(e), non‑participating physicians may not practise as participants; they will not therefore be faced with the conflict of interest described by certain witnesses. As for physicians who have withdrawn (s. 1(d) HEIA), the state controls their conditions of practice by way of the agreements (s. 1(f) HEIA) they are required to sign. Thus, the state can establish a framework of practice for physicians who offer private services.

Fair enough. My big beef with a lot of anti-SSM folks is their inability to back up their claims. Look at how many times I asked the late, unlamented SatanHarper the same question and was not once afforded an answer. By all means, stand by your views, just be prepared to defend their merits. This also applies to the pro-SSM types who's first resort is the "bigot defense". I can see however, why pro-SSM types get fed up: it can't be hard to maintain a level of respect when you have groups like Focus on the Family and such who actively demonize gays, call homosexuality "perverse" and "evil", equate it with crimes like bestiality or incest, and other assertions. When the bigots are the vanguard of the anti-SSM movement, its no surprise that the rest might get tarred with the same brush. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's true. And unfortunate for us thinking free-enterprisers. What is less known is that there are MPs from all parties who have actively spoken out against gay marriage and abortion. I read about an ND MP from the maritimes who was a catholic priest who I believe was espousing the criminalization of homosexuality and abortion. We all know there are Liberal MPs who oppose these things too. It just seems like whenever a CONSERVATIVE MP does it everyone in Ontario starts pointing fingers: "see? SEE? I TOLD you they are all redneckk bigots!!" Painting everyone with the same brush. It's prejudice. If I told you I saw three first nations people drinking drunk on the street and that "all aboriginal people are like that" you'd call me a bigot. But if a Liberal sees three Cons say something and says "they're all like that" he's a hero. Go figure.

Other than your fraternity-lampoon elaborations, can you offer any reason for voters not to think that the Conservatives are the party least favourable to universal public health care? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose I could go down that road and show you how our current PM slashed federal health transfers in HALF during his term as finance minister then campaigned in last years election on the premise that he would FIX health care-- the very mess he himself created. "A fix for a generation" turned out to be a one time $40 Billion handout. Very sly you Libs: automatically trying to put the Cons on the defensive. YOU are the one making the accusation, so the question is: other than Liberal attack ads, can you offer me any evidence that the Cons would be the least favorable to public health care? Especially in light of the Liberals obvious mismanagement. Personally I can't speak for the Cons because I am not a member of that party, but I CAN offer you a supreme court ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system. That is the real issue here.

I think lots of blue collars flip back and forth between pro labour(ndp) and traditional values (Conservatives)

You have chosen your examples badly. In those cases there is genuine culpability on the part of the executives involved, so they are a poor match for Paul Martin's situation. Do I recall you pretended to be a lawyer in another posts? Funny, because you don't have a very good understanding of the differences between culpable conduct and mere negligence. If you are saying Paul Martin, finance minister should have known and his failure to know constitutes a negligent failure of his duties, that is one thing. It is an argument with some potential merit as regards how one should vote. But to say without any sort of reasonable facts that 'Ontario wants thieves' is both false regarding the current Liberal options and false about Ontario's intentions. That skates pretty close to defamation if not right into. Where is your evidence? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no dispute that federal Liberals stole federal funds. The only question Gomery will answer is which ones. That isn't defamation: it's the truth and Gomery will say so in his report. BTW I said I was a Lawyer as a joke to illustrate that along with gay marriage will come gay divorce at probably the same 50% rate that we have in heterp couples and that's why I am in favor of it get it? lawyers will make a killing!!!

So? Legal definitions change all the time to reflect changes in society. A now-departed poster was using the example of the past criminalization of homosexuality as evidence that we're headed to hell in a hand basket. I'd say its a better demonstration of the law's ability to change and adapt to the realities of the society they govern. Ditto the "persons case" of 1929. So "changing the definition of X" is commonplace and, indeed, necessary. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair point. Actually I am kind of changing my mind here as we debate. I think I am truly in favor of allowing gays to marry. I think my main problem all along here is that I don't think it's philosphically wrong to oppose it and I don't like to see people get railroaded by being called names for expressing their views.

There has been a growing tendancy among those on the left who are generally rarely exposed to views contrary to what you'd see on the CBC to believe that what the CBC stands for is basially "canadian". It is moral. It is righteous. It is noble. Their own political views are rarely supported by much more than an emotional belief that their view is "right". Despite that, many cling to them as sacred, and grow outraged when anyone disagrees. An example. Some idiot - I mean, someone on the left, believes that they have a plan to help the poor (it doesn't matter if their plan is workable or not). Since it is their plan, and since it is designed to help the poor, then there can be no disagreement. To disagree is to not want to help the poor. Thus your disagreement is not merely a difference of opinion but takes on a moral tone. If you don't support the plan, then you don't care about the poor. You are therefore selfish, greedy, and thoughtless. You deserve to be treated badly because you are a terrible human being. Cliched? Yes, but many of the left are cliches. And so many arguments the left puts forward invariably take on a moral tone to them. If you disagree with them on abortion you're evil and hate women. If you disagree on SSM, you're an evil homophobe who doesn't believe in equality. If you disagree on health care you're evil and want to destroy public health care. There seems to be no room in their tiny minds for the possibility that you might believe your opinion is more workable and will help the greater number of people (never mind the possibility that it actually IS more workable and will help more people). No, their plan is perfection itself. If you are opposed to their plan, then you obviously are opposed to the alleged purpose of their plan, as well, be it helping the poor, achieving equality among races or sexes or sexual orientations, or bringing peace in our time. I've been talking politics a lot of years, and I don't recall seeing this level of simplistic, self righteous ignorance twenty years back. The left then tended to be better educated, and at least attempted to support their idiot endeavours with some logic. Now their arguments tend towards emotional nonsense. And how can you argue against someone's opinion when it's based on nothing but emotion? Believe me, using logic with such people is largely a waste of time. It's like trying to use logic to convince the pope that birth control isn't sinful. It just won't fly. There also is far, far less tolerance among these people for different opinions and different beliefs. Twenty years ago you could freely argue politics, even extreme politics, without name calling. Now even fairly mild disagreement draws sweeping denunciations as to the morality of those who disagree with them. Because, after all, everything they want is for the best, and if you disagree then you obviously want - the worst. Note idiotic accusations about the Tories wanting to destroy health care, and even to destroy Canada. It's not possible they could simply believe their plans are better. No, they MUST realize the perfection of Liberal/NDP schemes, and therefore, since those schemes are meant to bring about a more perfect Canada, well, obviously Conservative plans are meant for the opposite. And why would you show any respect for such an evil person? And why should such a person even be allowed to speak? Nothing wrong with shouting them down. Nothing wrong with trying to shut them up. They're bad people, after all. It is this absurd moralizing which brings down the tone of debate, a moralizing which has its base in ignorance, emotional immaturity, self-centredness, intellectual laziness, and a general lack of education. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent post Argus. Except you should have left out the "idiot" part, because I guarantee you that is the only part that the lefties will latch onto in their retort. It's sooooo true, though. I was raised in a marxist household and whenever I have a (healthy) debate with my father I always ask him: "do you SERIOUSLY think that Harper, Klein et al are sitting in some smoke filled room plotting the demise of health care?" I can just picture it Harper "god-DAMN this UNIVERSAL health care. I hate it when average citizens get coverage. We need to do something about this. We need to GAIN POWER and DESTROY the system so that only our rich friends can get care and EVRYONE ELSE WILL SUFFER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA........." It sounds absurd, but that seems to be what lefties really believe, or WANT voters to believe so they can cling to power and the staus quo.

The source is Andrew Coyne. Ah, no wonder then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually if you read the article you'd see he is actually FOR gay marriage.

You all keep repeating this piece of groundless stupidity. Why does this particular mendatious vituperation have such appeal, I wonder? After it cost the tories any chance in a spring election, especially. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> been watching gomery? the Libs stole from you. even paul martin admits that, why can't you? Why can't you accept what the actual evidence indicates. Yes, a clutch of Quebec Liberals around Chretien stole. Ontarians are not going to vote for them. There is no evidence linking Martin or the current cabinet with those activities. The Cons insistence on pretending otherwise is ... well, a Con. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Usually when a corporation commits fraud, it is the CEO and CFO who are ultimately to blame. The buck stops with them. When Enron and Worldcom went down, the head os those organizations took the fall. They are ultimately responsible for what happens financially in their organizations. When ADSCAM happened, PAUL MARTIN was the finance minister. Whether or not he knew what happened, he was culpibale in that he was in charge. But that aside; your case is weak that the government has changed because the LEADER has changed. This is largely the same goupr of thieves as served under chretien. Just a different face on the theft. Not to mention: Libs paint cons with the same brush all the time. If so much as ONE con MP says something inflammatory, it automatically finds it's way in harpers lap. But if your "small group of liberals" steals from us, somehow Paul Martin walks away un tarred. Strange.

Why? I don't think anyone has raised either the concept of fascism or bigotry in relation to the healthcare debate. When that one breaks into name-calling it is usually along the lines of 'communist' or 'rapacious capitalist'. Just because you think that doesn't make it so. Well, we've already dispensed with the idea that people make that claim regarding health care. Regarding SSM, I have reached my point of view anything but "instantly". I have concluded that opponents of SSM are basically acting out of bigotry after many many months of trying to deciphyer their rationale. In each case the objection winds up being based on grounds that simply make no sense other than as an irrational opposition to being made equal with someone they don't like. But I keep an open mind. If you have a sensible answer for my first question in this post: "WHY?", maybe it will be apparent that you are not basing your view on bigotry. Try me. No one is hindering your freedom of speach. To pretend that your freedom of speech is being hindered makes you appear ludicrous. Tolerant does not mean we must never disagree. Because you don't have an accurate picture of reality. Yes, I think that you are off base. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am glad you set me straight. So to summarize: "Tolerant does not mean we must never disagree" -- YOUR words; you should heed them. Calling people who disagree with you "bigots" is intolerant. With re: Gay Marriage. The onus isn't on me to prove that being against gay marriage isn't bigotry. You are the one who use the term BIGOT. The onus is upon you to prove your point. Please show me where Amnesty International has cited gay marriage as a HUMAN RIGHT.

Sadly, I think you're right.

The quote from Harper is alomost totally meaningless. The claim that so-cons don't want to impose their values is transparently false. The suggestion that society it actively undermining their values is bizarre. The available evidence runs counter to both sides of Harper's formulation. The desire by So-cons to legislate against abortions IS a desire to impose religious values on others. Opposition to SSM DOES revolve around a desire to have the state act in accord with their religious values. It would (does, and has) cost non-so-con conservatives a substantial amount of credibility to curry more favor with the so-cons. The reason for that is that the mainstream can see that religion is not a valid basis for constructing public policy. The mainstream wants public policy constructed on reasonable, pragmatic, effective, useful, beneficial grounds. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The source is Andrew Coyne. A moderate conservative writer for the National Post. I thought his point was similar to mine in the thread "who is the bigot?" . Namely: don't squash people's views or you will marginalize them and perpetuate their behavior.

OK all. Here it is! I am pasting the artcile below because I think it is brilliant and states eloquently what I have tried to in past posts. It's well worth the read, not your typical take on the world: LET THE SO-CONS OUT OF THE CLOSET Saturday, November 29, 2003 The best part of Larry Spencer's now-famous interview with the Vancouver Sun was his hazy intimation of the trouble he was already in. "I'm being very, very free here to talk with you against all advice probably that I should ever talk to any reporter [about] this," he said towards the end of the session, which is to say about 45 minutes too late. Yet the man could not stop himself. "But you know I'm feeling very, very deprived ... of my rights in that I cannot say openly -- I dare not say it in the House of Commons, even -- the full extent of what I really believe on some of these issues," namely the decades- long conspiracy among gay activists to seduce young boys into the cause, the desirability of recriminalizing homosexuality, etc. On the subject of the love that dare not speak its name, he would bloody well dare. I offer no theories on whether Mr. Spencer's was born with such feelings, or whether they may be attributed to an over-protective mother. Who knows? Perhaps he, too, was recruited on some playground by a Baptist activist. It does seem possible, however, for this particular orientation to be reversed, even at the member for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre's late stage in life, to judge by his remarkable about-face the next day ("I retract the statement I made indicating I would support a bill to criminalize homosexuality .... I apologize for linking the homosexual community with pedophilia..." etc.) There is a less facetious parallel between what we are obliged to call the "gay community" (no one simply is who they are any more in polite journalism: they are invariably described as members of a "community," as in the "black community," the "disabled community," and so on, as if to suggest a series of well-attended meetings) and the social conservatives, such as Mr. Spencer, who are so troubled by their existence. It is the experience of marginalization, and its associated behavioural responses. Those of us who support the legal recognition of gay marriage, the current litmus test of mainstream society's acceptance of homosexuals, do so not only out of the traditional liberal belief in equal rights and social tolerance. It is, at least for some, also prompted by a desire to encourage homosexual acceptance of mainstream norms. The conservative case for gay marriage expresses itself in the hope that marriage may have the same civilizing effect on homosexuals that it does on heterosexuals, encouraging stable, monogamous relationships and the social values that go with them. It is for just this reason that some scholars in the field of "queer theory" have denounced gay marriage as a plot to devalue the promiscuity they celebrate as a distinctive part of gay culture. And of course it is. The theory, which remains to be proved, is that promiscuity, in common with other, more flamboyant expressions of "gay culture," is not in fact something integral to being gay, but rather a reaction to society's historic marginalization of gays and gay sexuality, of which the most substantial remaining legacy is the refusal to extend legal recognition to gay unions. In short, if you want gays to join the mainstream, the first thing you have to do is let them in. Well, we shall see. Meantime, let us apply the same thinking to social conservatives, another marginalized group that is obsessed with gay sex. Mainstream conservatives are properly concerned that Mr. Spencer's excesses, and similar eruptions over the years from others of the ilk, will tar the whole movement, just as it is trying to start fresh. For some, the lesson to be drawn is that social conservatives must be rigidly excluded from the new party (or, if you follow Joe Clark's fog-in-channel reasoning, that the new party must be rigidly excluded from the dwindling band of irredentists in the Progressive Conservative "mainstream"). This would be exactly the wrong response. If it is necessary for social conservatives to come to terms with homosexuality, at least as a matter of legal rights, it is equally necessary for the mainstream of the party to come to terms with social conservatives. Part of the reason such backwoods sentiments as emerged from Mr. Spencer's mouth have endured, impervious to changes in the wider world, is that for too long social conservatives have more or less been told to stay in the backwoods. The condescension that drips from Mr. Clark and others whenever social conservatives and social conservative issues are raised is telling. For all the excitement the so-cons raise in the press, their "agenda" is decidedly, almost pathetically, limited. In Stephen Harper's apt formulation, "We will not ask the state to impose our values on others. But we will demand that the state stop undermining those values." In other words, just don't make things worse for us. (Perhaps that's a little too neat. On occasion, the so-cons have had only themselves to blame, for failing to pick their fights well. So narrow was their focus on stopping gay marriage, for example, that they lost sight of the broader erosion in the legal status of marriage itself. But the point stands: the so-cons are fighting a rear-guard action, nothing more.) It would cost mainstream conservatives little to show the so-cons some elementary courtesy, even a little respect. They are not asking for much: just to be listened to, or more precisely, heard. Were they not in such utter despair of ever being in a position to influence the debate -- in conservative circles, let alone the country -- they might be less inclined to explore the wilder shores of Mr. Spencer's imaginings. If you want the so-cons to join the mainstream, in other words, you have to let them in.

Not to get picky or anything but my Webster's dictionary includes the following as one definition for marriage: Any close or intimate union. Kinda blurs the "is" part of your argument. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If marriage already included Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are having this discussion because Gays and Paul Martin want to CHANGE the definition of marriage.

This analogy makes no sense, countries and governments are not the same people. Quebec seperatists and their sympathizers/enablers ouside of Quebec like to make it sound like negotiating a new deal will be as simple as shaking hands. This is an extremely niave and dangerous attitude. Think about it: we already have a political environment in this country that makes it impossible for the various parties to agree on a new constitution. Compromise would be even less likely in the emotionally charged environment after a yes vote. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It may be so that the logistics of an actual separation would be a nightmare. My point is more theoretical. I think the idea has merit. My original post was simply in agreement that splitting the country isn't necessarily bad -- in THEORY. Yes, it would probably be a nightmare. I say we just pro-rate the debt, piece it off to quebec and pull out all public services like the military and federal offices. I am sure they'd still use our currency. Or maybe adopt the greenback. But I would be interested to see what would happen to air canada. All those biliqual francophones might get replaced by people with nice personalities JOKE!!! c'mon guys just kidding!!!

Actually I will take your word for it. I am not from Quebec. It doesn't take away the idea that we both might be better off as close friends as opposed to family members.

I bet Paul is wishing he had not promised to "wait for gomery" to call an election.

I am going to copy and paste your response and substitute some words (in brackets) to show you what my point was: "Actually, I would think that text is akin to the spin that is trying to be put on the "new look" for <communists>. Why, oh why are we <communists> so misunderstood. Why oh why when we mean so well and we only want to destroy public <this country the USA> for the good of - er the common good,do all those nasty <McArthyists> call us names. It is really no more than a veiled attack on rationality. An attempt to vilify non <communists> with the other hand. It categorizes all those who hold "moral" positions as <communists> and the rest as devils. I have some news for you, Jerry. There are many of us who opposed <the war> who would not be caught dead in the same room as a <communist>. And there is no bigotry in us." OK, get the point? Your post (with some words substituted) looks like something McArthy-ists would have said in the communist witch hunt in the USA. Can you see the complete, blanket lack of tolerance you have demonstrated?

Has anyone on here looked at other models? I took a very cursory look at Frances model. It is impressive. From what I gather, everyone (universally) participates in a public insurance scheme like medicare in Canada. But the public insurance only "routine" medicine. Then you "top up" your insurance privately to cover catostrophic care. I think it was around $50-100 / month. Also, when you go to the hospital you have a choice between waiting in line at public providers or going to private clinics right away. So it is a mixed private / public system. I am sure it's not perfect. Every system has it's flaws, but it's worth looking at. In fact, that's exactly what Ralph Klein is doing in Alberta right now. He is gathering somekind of "health symposium" and studying other health care systems in developed countries like france, the UK, Germany etc. Now what is wrong with that? The most interesting thing about the Supreme Court decision was that it clearly states (lines 61-65 of the ruling) that there is no evidence to suggest that a parallel private system would harm the public system in any way. The strange part of the whole ruling was the reaction by Paul Martin. He (again) pretended it didn't happen, clearly stating "we will not have two tier medicine in this country". Um, yes Paul, we will. If you're gonna agree with the courts on SSM, you gotta show some consistency and agree with them on health care. Live by the sword, die by the sword It's unfortunate that the conservatives, too ran for shelter under the "save medicare" umbrella. I thought it was a real opportunity for them to shift the debate in their favor and, set themselves apart from the status quo Liberals and sell the idea to Canadians that some degree of privatizatoin isn't all bad. Heck, we already know we have it: even Paul Martin's doctor is private. I thought the conservatives blew that opportunity to open up this discussion once and for all. I'm glad the court made this ruling, because now (hopefully) we can have have a legitimate debate on the issue without the political rhetoric.

Are you kidding me? There are tons of private insurers that you're not even thinking of. I work for a company that provides medical benefits to me through Manulife Financial. Manulife Financial isn't the Ontario Provincial Government, they're a private insurer. Just about everyone who works fulltime and gets medical benefits has private insurance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They only insure procedures NOT covered by medicare. I am talking about private insurers competing with medicare. ie. Buy insurance for EVERYHING then if you need the procedure youcould get it done privately using your insurance and skip the line up, or publically using medicare.

You all keep repeating this piece of groundless stupidity. Why does this particular mendatious vituperation have such appeal, I wonder? After it cost the tories any chance in a spring election, especially. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> been watching gomery? the Libs stole from you. even paul martin admits that, why can't you?

YES! Of course Harper's a big dud. After all, he's down in the polls over the past three weeks. Throw the bastard out! Easy, people. The nice thing about Harper is that he doesn't lay on the same saccarine rhetoric that Paul Martin does. That's his charm. Sure, Harper is a little stoic. But I'd take a boring guy with integrity anyday over a superslick salesman like Martin, who tries to be all things to all people all the time. And Ontarians just lap it right up. The snake oil salesman is alive and well in central canada.

My issue: I am a right of centre conservative from Alberta. I am also an academic. I am also pro choice, but anti abortion. In other words I wouldn't mind seeing all parties agree on some initiatives that would attempt to reduce the number of abortions demanded by women. Maybe education about birth control etc. I can't think of anyone on this board who is in favor of MORE abortions. I have no issue with Gay persons as I agree with Trudeau that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. One of my closest friends is a Gay woman. She and I have discussed this issue and she does not consider me a bigot for drawing the line at marriage. I am in favor of civil unions, not same sex marriage. I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples. I just don't think it should be called marriage. I favor exploring new ways to improve our health care system. I'd like to see if we can reduce wait times without breaking the bank. Perhaps some incorporation of private provision or insurance can help improve the efficiency of the current system so that we can continue to have great health care into the future. I am aware that socialist nations such as sweden have private care, so am dumbfounded as to why it's such a bad word here in Canada. I don't want to dismantle the current system, I just want to repair it, and my mind is open to all suggestions -- even private ones. These (above) are some key issues which have, in the past, been used to paint conservatives in this country as fascists or bigots. In fact, I'd argue that Stephen Harper's views on these issues are very similar to the ones I have expressed here. I don't see these views as draconian. Certainly they are different from the status quo. This scares many people. The masses hate change. But there is nothing hateful or mean spirited in the above views. What IS hateful and mean spirited is when people who disagree with the above instantly brand people who espouse these views as "fascists and bigots". It's not fair and it's not condusive to communication in this country. We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech. We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard. Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist. In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves. Am I off base here?

the word "Lifestyle" intimates they made a choice to be this way, they didn't it happened at birth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually you're wrong. Ever heard of "queer theory". It's body of academic thought put forth by GAY academics. Most "queer theorists" (GAY people, activists) oppose gay marriage on the basis that is will erode the more promiscuous lifestyles often found in the gay community. To paraphrase: "We don't WANT to be like traditional married couples, we like our LIFESTYLE being different, it's what sets us apart as a unique group in society." So, to correct you: Sure, gay people are born gay, but there is still a lifestyle with which many leaders of the gay community identify; one which is different than that of the traditional marriage.