gc1765

haha, good one!

Exactly.

Yes, I'm sure you have a much better understanding of what I mean when I said that Liam was respectful. I've already clarified what I meant in my previous post, so it seems now you are just trolling. Let's not debate semantics here, would you be happier if I changed my previous comment to "Liam has not insulted anyone here"? Would that satisfy you? I only wish I could say the same about people like Leafless...

Wow, big deal, he used a few "bad" words. He didn't insult anyone on this board (which is what I meant by respectful). That is a lot more than I can say for Leafless....

It could be a coincidence, but look at polls from December 2006. Notice the huge nosedive right around the time the RCMP announced their investigation. I'm sure there is at least some link between the two.

Try to follow the rules: "Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it)." Where's Ricki Bobbi to defend Dion against personal attacks?

From my understanding, he is not calling YOU a dog turd, or slamming you, but that he doesn't want other people slamming him or treating him like dog turd. What's wrong with not wanting to be treated like dog crap?

oops double post...

How many anti-gays have posted on this thread with militant anti-gay remarks? I find the gays to be quite respectful in their posts on this thread, especially people like Liam (I haven't read ALL 35 pages but I haven't seen any "militant gay agenda remarks"). What I have seen though, is many anti-gay remarks from people like Leafless. And yet he is the one complaining about flooding the threads?????

NEWSFLASH: This thread was started by YOU.

Dion can't stop them from coming together to choose someone to nominate. Heck, they could probably even form their own party and call it "Liberal II" or something like that.

This is probably true... ...however, how would you conservative-types feel if he had reduced emissions? perhaps brought in a carbon tax? shut down the oil industry? destroyed the economy (which is what would supposedly happen if we reduced our emissions)? Would you be happier if he had done these things?

They can still nominate someone and run them as an independent. Dion can't do anything about that (nor should he be able to).

thanks, that was hilarious!

That is a good point... ...however, there are many advantages to being married that do not take anything away from single people. Here's one example Link

...or perhaps we should give tax breaks to people who adopt for foreign countries? Anyways, if your best argument for giving heterosexual couples more rights is that they have the possibility to produce children, why wouldn't you rather give incentives to have kids (which there already are anyways)? A tax break proportional to the number of children, regardless of marital status?

If you think we need more children/people in Canada, does that mean we should allow more immigrants?

I already addressed this issue in the original thread (why do we have another thread anyways?)... Link

So I take it you believe in being soft on criminals? Turn the other cheek? Or giving money to the poor?

Why don't you explain How it's undemocratic? What is stopping Liberal supporters from supporting an independent candidate (or a new party) running on the same "liberal" issues? Is it undemocratic if the ONLY thing that changes is the name of the party? Is it undemocratic not to run in a riding? Is it undemocratic for me not to be running in the next election, and therefore depriving voters in my riding of a choice? Was it undemocratic for the alliance/PC parties to merge?

If they were actually anti-Harper, then yes they would have endorsed either Paul "completely exonerated" Martin or Jack Layton. Why not, almost half the country supported these two parties. But of course, the G & M is not anti-Harper and that's why they endorsed him.

How so?

The same G & M that endorsed him in the election?

Don't forget B. Max et al. for their global warming conspiracy theories.

If it's not a right, then let's ban heterosexual marriage.