sharkman

In refering to liberals attacking, I was referring to Canadians in general. Martin has been attacking the plan and your usual assortment of liberals. By the way, speaking of fish, Martin is really looking unhealthy lately, how old is he I wonder. There comes a point when one has to slow down and I think this campaign is too much for him.

The bottom line is use of the word marriage. If so many are concerned about that, what's wrong with a compromise word like union. Gays still get all the rights, just by a different word.

Gays are a very small minority group, yet they receive more attention than natives do in Canada. They should be given the attention that their numbers warrant. That's fair, isn't it?

Norman, you get your knickers in a twist over nothing! Civil unions would be loved by gays in all nations where they aren't recognized yet, and the only difference in Canada is we went too far, allowing marriage to be used. But Harper will fix that.

It looks like Harper's got a really sound plan for health care, that's why liberals are immediately attacking it.

Oops, I posted without checking my facts.(nevermind)

Compromise: not having any union at all vs full blown marriage = civil union. If Elton's not squawking about it, maybe it's a good thing. Let's remember, the vast majority of nations don't have any kind of gay marriage at all. Maybe we went too far.

Don't look now, but laws of the land such as stealing and murder and lying under oath all got their starts in life as religious laws. Funny, huh?

That's a perfectly reasonable compromise, I believe that's the type of law that Elton is going to use to form a union with his partner. If Elton thinks it's okay, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Yes, actually Harper is looking really together. Martin, on the other hand, looks like he's losing, even though he's not yet.

Does anyone know what the CPC position is on same sex civil unions as opposed to marriage, which they feel is defined as a man and woman(and rightly so I might ad)?

I did not try to reverse myself. My position has been consistent throughout. You misinterpreted my earlier comments as being anti-Christian. I merely clarified the fact that you had misinterpreted my comments. In retrospect, I should not have wasted my time since you still seem to be under the completely erroneous impression that criticism of religious conservatives is somehow inherently anti-Christian but not anti-Sikh or anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What you can't seem to realize is that you are a hypocrite. You came on this board slamming the CPC for a supposed anti gay bias, but you then call members of the party by all sorts of silly names. Criticism of any group is not the same as using slurs like bible thumper. If you fail to see that then perhaps I'm wasting MY time. Also, I'd like to see you call a Hindu or Sikh a 'Bible thumper.' You're really reaching now. You can try to invent new definitions but bible thumper has always been a slight on the Christian religion.

More side stepping Norman? Please tell me how 'bible thumper' can be connected to anything but Christianity. Further, to suggest it's okay to use your intolerant labels on some Christians but not others is like saying it's okay to call some homosexuals names, if they are radical enough activists. It's typical thinking of those of your political bent, and quite ugly. But go ahead and defend it, your previous response was quite revealing.

Here are the comments in which Norman used the terms in question: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=4296&st=45 Of course I favour freedom of religion and that includes defending the freedom of Harper and his supporters to be intolerant and hate lesbians if that's what their religion preaches. But the irrational fear that religious people will be arrested for hating gays is one which seems to be unique to the religious zealots and Bible thumpers surrounding Harper and his party. The Bible already says hateful things about other ethnic groups and religions but Harper and the Bible thumpers don't seem to have irrational fears about being arrested for preaching on those issues. (/quote) Nowhere here does Norman clarify a distinction between the 2 kinds of his religious types in using the term bible thumpers. Never mind the swipe he took at the Bible and ignored me when I challenged him on it. Further, nowhere did he use the term religious conservatives and one is left to assume from his comments that he feels all religious people are the same. Personally, I don't lose any sleep over his comments, but they are what they are. Trying to reverse himself after the fact shows he knows he stepped over a line.

Just to be clear: has he described all Christians in that fashion? Or is he referring specifically to a certain subset of Christians? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only after he was challenged on it did he bother to offer a distinction between christians he's okay with versus the conservative kind it's okay to describe using the above characterizations.

NNOORRRMMM, it's the GHOST OF SHOOP talking now, I order you to up your meds!

Excellent response, repetitive comments like that are a bit worrisome, indeed, borders on intolerance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've been watching Norman's characterizations of Christians, and the weight of all of his previous posts does not match up with his most recent explanation above. But it's good to at least be aware of his intolerance.

Gee, maybe it's because he's loyal to Preston's approach to the Reform party and didn't like Harper. Other than that, it is common, you know, for economists to disagree on things. This is no different. It's a great idea to reduce the GST and will pay off at the polls.

I think the pressure is gettiing to you Norman, but for the record I am not shoop. So if 2 conservatives both think you're wrong, it's a conspiracy? However, I invite you to mosy over to the thread you started on the Conservatives containing 50% religious types. You have some 'splanin to do.

Have you ever seen when two competing gas stations are next to each other? There are plenty of times when one drops its price lower than the other. Even if it's only one cent, sure enough that gas station will get all the traffic until the other one drops its price too. It's human nature even though it may only save them a quarter. This GST announcement will have the same effect on voting day. That's why Martin was so quick to denounce it. If he copied it, it would look defensive and weak, so he has to criticize it. It's the one tax he couldn't touch because if he made any promises about it, he would get nailed for the Liberals broken promise back in '93.

Well, if these comments have done any damage, it's been very little, or so the polls say. Klein's comments have been kicking around for a while now. I think the worst is over, and as long as Harper stays on the offensive he can dicatate the headlines in the media.

Maybe half of CPCs are religious and the other half are not, big deal. I've met many christians who are definitely not conservative, it's no scale to predict their leanings. I'll bet a big portion of the Liberal MPs are religious too, but the Vancouver Sun doesn't worry about them. But the use of phrases like bible thumpers, religious zealots, gay bashers and lesbian haters is concerning, and Norman has used these in describing Christians. I object to these hateful descriptions and think Norman should grow some of this tolerance if he's so concerned about it in the CPC. Care to respond Norman, or are you going to ignore this as you have other comments?

It's no surprise that small c conservatives and others who don't like the direction the party has taken will come out and snipe at Harper. Happens in politcs all the time. Closer to the election date when their comments will have more effect, others will come out in favour of Harper. After over a decade of a liberal agenda, we need social conservatism in Canada and Harper is just the guy to bring it on.

This poll is already out of date. In a few days there should be a new poll after the effect of the GST reduction announcement can be measured. That savvy move will no doubt see sizable gains for the conservatives as people realize they not not scary and actually have sound ideas.

the environmentalism movement has been tremendously successful in most modern free countries. (For instance, the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization in the 80s, I believe becuase all his goals had been met.) But instead of going to protest countries that ignore environmental practices like most African dictatorships, China, Russia and the like, environmentalists are content to stay at home and grumble about Alaska drilling. I'm still waiting to see protestors in China chaining themselves to the site of the industrial accident that caused that huge chemical spill, but it'll never happen. That's where the worst offenders are but they'll stay here and riot during those world trade conferences instead.