sharkman

Has anyone heard about a recent development regarding the Green party in Vancouver? Saturday's National Post has a story about Kevin Potvin, a Green candidate, who publishes a small paper there called The Republic of East Vancouver. In it he has related how elated he felt as 9/11 was occuring, and an urge to pump his fist in the air. He also described the 2005 London subway bombings as not cowardly, despicable and unspeakable acts, but acts of war. He has also used his paper suggest the U.S. government had a hand in 9/11. I would suggest that this will have negaitve impact on the Greens, and by extension, the Liberals for consorting with a party that has such whackos in it.

Seriously, dude, the bees are dying off. This is alarming because much of our food and plant life depends on pollination, which bees do quite nicely. No bees, no food. The question is why are they dying.

Gee I hope you do more than just read British papers, they are full of the left. Then again, that's where you are coming from too so I guess it suits you.

Nowhere did I claim he called me a dog turd. Nor did he state he didn't want to be treated like a dog turd. You appear to be misreading what he said. Again, I did nothing to deserve such harsh comments. Are you just trolling? You make a statement about Liam in particular, and then when called on it you move the goalposts. Whatever G, look just forget it because I wouldn't want to upset your world view. Have a happy day.

Uh, liam slammed me just a couple pages back, something about the gay agenda is not to be treated like a dog turd on the street(?), and wanting me to spare him the gay agenda crap. I did nothing to deserve such treatment.

You have a point there. I only scanned the previous several comments myself and now see why you reponded as you did.

I'm not making this comment to you leonard, but to the Senator Nation. Your team loses ONE game and reports say you are freaking out over it, bringing up past failures and repeating it to each other. You need to get a grip and support your team. Negative shit will only hurt the team. Don't even think about the past. Phone up and shout down stupid talk show hosts that can't get with the program. Freak out at twits that want to boo the team at times. You are all Senators, you are only booing yourselves. Be the sixth man on the ice and start making positive mojo for the team. It may sound crazy, but your team needs to feel your love not your accusations. Negative shit WILL HAVE AN AFFECT.

I suppose the question is, how many gays have posted on this thread with militant gay agenda remarks.

Maybe critical mass. Cell phone use has gotten so prevalent it has finally begun affecting nature.

This just in, bees are dying off due to the effects of cell phone radiation which interrupts their homing senses. They can't make it back to the hive. If this turns out to be true, do you think people will give up cell phones or food? I'm betting on the food. The story.

I made none of the assertions that you were responding to. Go ahead and review the last few pages. Edit: And I haven't ever simply answered someone with a response that is three words long (no she doesn't), without further explanation. Hey, it's a free country, do whatever turns your crank.

Yes, she does. No, she doesn't. She encourages it. That's true. For example, shameless rightwingers think it's funny to denigrate and lie about people, abuse their grief, and victimize them with words. No, she's not. Nope. Satire is a particular type of humor and Coulter doesn't use it. That's your response? " No she doesn't!! So there, I told you! I'M right and you're wrong. Nah nah nah-nah nah." That's pretty weak, even for a leftwinger.

What you've got is 2 Newfoundand sources. Not exactly objective, but it's interesting how much of a swing (7 billion) that professor was able to make. Makes me wonder how much pressure was put on him. At any rate, 17.5 billion is a crazy amount of money to be given to a province of 514,409(wikipedia, 2006). Divide the population into 17.5 billion and you get $34,019 for each man woman and child. Geez, no one needs to work! Martin was crazy to sign this deal and Danny was a blackmailer to take it. 24.1 billion would have meant $46,849 for each person in the population. That's just lunacy.

Presumably, then, you would have every heterosexual married couple fertility-tested to determine their proper tax status, and you would terminate any advantages to couples after the woman has passed menopause. Right? If not, why not? If you'll read the line you quoted, I said the possibility of adding to the population. Without this police state testing as you purpose, the male female couple has the possibility of offspring while the gay couple does not. Since we live in free countries, people are free to choose what lifestyle they want. But of course choices have consequences. It seems by the number of comments, I have opened a can of worms. Sorry I haven't been reading this board this afternoon, I put together a barbecue, watched some hockey and now my wife and I are going to a movie. Thanks for your thoughts and polite comments, I was kind of expecting the term homophobe to be thrown at me since often times anytime someone has a contrary opinion about gay issues, that's the knee jerk response.

No I am not saying that. You are preoccupied with money, it's about the children and how little Canada has ( as well as many other countries). We need children for the tax base, not money.

Gay unions should not benefit from the same tax breaks as male female unions. This is because a gay union does not have the possibility of adding to the population. Children are the basis of any country, and governments giving tax breaks and such is only right. I live in Canada, and our birthrate has been so low we do not even come close to maintaining our population. My wife is a school teacher, and schools are closing at an alarming rate. Schools are growing empty, and the only way the government can fight this is to have massive levels of immigration. The implications of these conditions are not encouraging. Couple this with a baby boomer generation getting set to begin retiring in few years, and the results on our work force and tax base will change Canada like nothing before. Encouraging gay unions by giving them the exact same benefits as straight couples only shrinks an already dwindling birth rate. Do whatever you want in your bedroom, but don't expect your government to treat you the same as a couple that has the possibility of contributing to the life blood of the nation.

And your point is? Congrats, you found a group of whackos to poke a stick at.

Perhaps this is what it has come to when educators can no longer discipline students. That spoiled silly little child needed to have consequences for her actions. A good spanking would have done the trick.

Special status?? Where in my post did I say that being gay earns me special status? Being gay doesn't make me better than anyone. But it doesn't make me worse than anyone, either. Particularly when you consider that gay people fund their governments in equal amounts as their straight brethren, yet most of them get nothing but inequality in return. Thankfully, I live in Massachusetts which has full equality, but 95% of gay Americans live in states where they pay as much in taxes as straight people but get nothing in return. Is that fair? That is THE gay agrenda. I couldn't give two sh*ts if you like me, love me, hate me or want to see me hoisted on a pike in the town square. But my agenda, THE gay agenda, is not to be forced to treated like a dog turd on the street. Why should I pay taxes into a system which continues to marginalize me as a person and give me fewer rights than someone who did nothing to earn better status? I've paid into systems that hates me long enough. You have the luxury of being oblivious to it. Society caters to you, whether you know it or not. For me, if I lived anywhere else than where I do, I'd have to incur thousands of dollars in legal fees for will drafting, health care proxies, and the like. And regardless of where I live and regardless fo the rights I have here in Massachusetts, I still wouldn't get the same protection at the federal level than Britney Spears gets when she decides to have a 30 hour marriage with her latest co-dependent at the Betty Ford Clinic. So spare me that "gay agenda" cr^p. It seems to me that straights are the ones with the real agenda and it's to keep anyone unlike them at a disadvantage. You must be a little stressed out about something, I made no comments to rile you up. Nowhere in your post did you claim 'special status', and I never claimed you said that. I was referring to the gay agenda or culture war, in which the strategy is to have everything gay enshrined in legislation. Your point about gays paying taxes to governments and getting nothing for it is quite silly. Do these gays get to send children to the local school? Play at the local playground? Do these gays get to drive on the local highways? Of course they get all the benefits that the different levels of governments offer, and your attempt to say otherwise shows a mindset out of touch with reality. I hope it's not the typical gay mind set. Your comment about Britney Spears begs the question, what regular person gets the same protection as a Britney Spears gets? And why the hell do you think you deserve such protection just because you are gay? The wealthy get more than everyone else, it has always been the way of things, even at the federal level. Life should not be handed to you on a silver platter just because you are gay, straight or whatever. It appears that you are racist against straight people.

Here's a perfect example. A running fight filled with accusations and attack that really has you wasting your time, but you can't seem to help yourself.

You misunderstand, I clearly said gay agenda.

Guthrie, I've been scanning the threads, and I've noticed you seem to get into alot of knock down fights with people. Why is that? Many of your comments are sprinkled with sarcastic put downs and name calling which only serves to encourage attacks. I've had a few with you since you came here and it hasn't been particularly enjoyable. Do you enjoy all of the arguments?

With respect, the bone of contention I have with the gay agenda is it's insistance (and can be read quite plainly in your post) that it be given special status, as if one is better than another simply because of sexual orientation. This is no better than the homophobes who think the same. There has always been hatred at others, be they gay, Jewish, Arabic, Black, White or whatever. Big deal. It doesn't make you better than anyone.

Sorry, Charlie, the truth is, he wasn't. 'manipulating his symptoms' at all. Rush Limbaugh is a liar and a fraud and uses callous, libelous comments as his base line for all other commentary. Those clowns who follow him, are just foolish dupes. overdose of parkinson's medication is very serious, even causing death in some cases. Medical advice is to seek help immediately. Fox would be well aware of this, and it seems quite odd that he would film a commercial while overmedicated, instead of seeking medical help immediately. At any rate, Fox freely admitted manipulating his symptoms in his book, Guthrie. Granted it was another occasion, but if he did it in front of senators, its possible he did in for a stem cell commercial. Either way his claims of overdosing himself seem pretty unlikely given the many years he's been taking medication, and the serious affects of an overdose. Yet if he overdosed accidentally, and then wanted to continue filming, it's obvious he wanted the effects of the overdose on film. If he went through the filming process without meds, its obvious he did that on purpose too. They don't put anything on film by accident. Its plain to see their strategy was to have his symptoms displayed for effect. And to lie about it afterward when called on it only makes it more obvious.

Again, you are wrong about the symptoms occuring because of medication instead of without it. No, I am not wrong, you seem to not understand the black and white of your own sources. maybe you can understand this: CBS News Who's wrong now, Charlie??? Well now, isn't that something? A celebrity saying two different things about how their disease/medication affects them, depending on whether they are being called on it or not. When he wasn't being attacked for it, Fox tells how he stopped his meds so his symptoms would have impact, then when he's called on it he claims it happened because he overmedicated. Either way he was manipulating his symptoms for pity. What's the difference?