gc1765

Seems like a waste of money to me. Not to worry though, the partisans will say it's only $650,000. I'm just surprised it didn't end with "A message from Canada's New GovernmentTM. Link

Do the NDP even have a chance in this riding? The thing is, not only might the NDP lose votes in this riding, but they might lose votes across the entire country for rejecting this candidate, whereas I doubt people outside of this riding are going to choose not to vote NDP if they ran this candidate in that riding. Given that the green party is now ahead of the NDP in the polls, this decision is a bad one - at least politically speaking. I'm not arguing with that.

I'm not saying that the party doesn't have the right to decide which candidate to run, but if they reject a candidate for no good reason they would be less likely to get my vote. This is especially surprising coming from the NDP, since I'd bet a lot of the people who vote NDP don't give a damn whether someone is transgendered, and might even decide not to vote for the NDP over this issue.

Maybe not, but shouldn't that be up to the people in the riding to decide?

And where did I say that this person should get $10,000 of personal therapy or seek attention in court cases?

Pliny, you are a conservative. That means I think there is a pretty good chance that you are selfish and don't care about anyone but yourself. It means you probably want to jail the homeless as well as homosexuals. It means you probably live in Alberta and own 6 guns. It means you probably don't care at all about the environment. It means you are probably quick to support invading other countries, even without all the facts. No, I don't have a single fact to back up those *opinions*, just "experience". Note to anyone about to jump in at this point that I am obviously being sarcastic here. Read the context. How about when they have even the slightest shred of evidence to support their opinions other than which gender a person identifies with?

Whaaaaaaat???? Where did I say anything about money? I'm not blaming you if someone who is gay commits suicide, but if you constantly tell people how bizarre they are for being transgendered don't be surprised if a few of them grow up with "psychological problems".

That's not the point, the point is what is the "norm" is irrelevant - don't you agree?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Think of how many people commit suicide because they are ashamed that they are gay. Do you really think those people would be doing so if being gay was more accepted in society? Now imagine something that is even less accepted, like being transgendered.

And what if someone points out that they're screwed in the head BEFORE they even knew that?

Your link didn't say that the "majority" of transgendered people have psychological problems, and even if it did that wouldn't necessarily make it true. Of course there are some transgendered people who have psychological problems, just as there are some people from every race who are violent. Now, do you think the people who do have psychological problems could be because of the way they are viewed in society, and not vice-versa?

I know you don't actually believe that. Remember this?: So, I think we both agree that what is the "norm" is irrelevant...

So, back to my question that you didn't answer. You would have no problem with me assuming that someone is violent based on the colour of their skin so long as, by sheer luck, my assumption turned out to be true?

I don't question people's sanity because they choose to worship some magical being in the sky, even though to me that seems bizarre. That they choose to do so seems irrelevant to me. So why should you question someone else's sanity because they do something that you find bizarre?

Based on the facts? What facts? Scott had his mind made up before he even knew the facts (i.e. before he even read August's post). If I assume that someone is violent based on the colour of their skin, and they turn out to be violent, does that justify my original assumption based on a stereotype? I'm saying there is not a valid reason to assume that someone who is transgendered has "psychological problems".

I couldn't really think of anyone else from the NDP except Ed Broadbent, but he's gone. By the way, what did he say about Northcott?

After seeing the thread about the most irritating politicians, I think it would be interesting to see the opposite - which politicians you respect the most...preferably from different political parties. Conservative: Jim Prentice, Michael Chong Liberal: Paul Martin, Gerard Kennedy (although he's not currently a member) Bloc: Gilles Duceppe NDP: Pat Martin Other: Bill Casey Former members: Ed Broadbent, Chuck Cadman

I'm a bit surprised that you are defending scottsa on this one. I've always thought you were from the more progressive side of the Conservative party. Are you saying there is nothing wrong with stereotyping??

Yes, as I mentioned earlier this is based on the presumption that the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, which realistically is going to be the focus of any of these climate change talks.

Sounds good to me. I don't care what people do on their own property, but I have just as much right to be in public as anyone else without having carcinogens blown in my face.

Hear, hear.

Good point! You seem to have left him speechless...

Interesting question: Liberals: Garth Turner, John McCallum NDP: Jack Layton Conservatives: Monte Solberg, Jason Kenney, David Emerson, Jim Flaherty That's all I can think of for now... edit: oops, I can't believe I almost forgot Hedy Fry....maurice vellacott, joe volpe...

Glad you judged her before even reading August's post Anyways, let me know when the money she receives from these lawsuits reaches $2.1 million...

Thought so.