gc1765

Good. I'm glad that you agree that Muslims should not be blamed for the action of others. I'm also glad that you admit that some are taking a stand. Are you now willing to take back your earlier comments saying that being a whacko teaching hate is "an Imam thing"?

It's not that obvious. Can you please clearly state your position. Specifically: a) Do you believe all Imams/Mulsims are teaching hate? if your answer to part a) is no, do you believe that the Imams/Muslims who are not teaching hate deserve to be lumped in with, and criticized for, the actions of the Imams/Muslims who are teaching hate?

Stop putting words in my mouth again. I recognize there is a problem with teaching hate. I stated that very clearly in my previous post. I"m not sure if this is intentional on your part or not, but I thought I made that quite clear. Now, are you willing to admit that not all Imams/Muslims are teaching hate, and therefore do not deserve to be lumped in with the few whackos who are, like you tried to do with your cat analogy??

Sorry, my name is not Gilles Duceppe. If an issue is worth re-opening, then I see no problem with re-opening the issue. But if we are talking about wasting time, which is what another poster was complaining about, I'd say opening up the debate on same-sex marriage is bigger waste of time. But then again, I just don't understand why anyone cares enough about who someone else marries to make it an important issue...

You basically said that with your comparison to your cats. Here is your quote again: If you are trying to compare muslims/imams to your cats using this analogy, then you are saying all muslims/imams are whackos who are teaching hate. A better analogy would have been your first paragraph, where you mentioned that if one out of four cats is a whacko, that does not make the other three whackos. This is a much better comparison to make. You should use that analogy to see that if some muslims are acting as whackos, that does not make other muslims whackos. Thank you for this link, I think it proves my point quite nicely: It seems that you are the one putting words in my mouth. I never said that teaching hate is not a problem, OF COURSE it is. But unless you can convince me that all muslims are teaching hate, you should not lump them in the same category. You can not assume that being whacko is "an Imam thing" because of the action of a few.

Maybe not to you. I already provided a link to the comment caugh on videotape. If the link still works, I suggest you watch it. You may need to listen to it a few times, but you can definately hear the comment. At least I can. If you dont get caught there's nothing wrong with it? Why would you? All politicians lie. As a people, we have long accepted that. The first words out of Paul Martin's mouth when he was sworn in as Prime Minister were to thank all the members of the previous cabinet, who, he said, he had unbounded respect and admiration for. You know he was lying. You know he hated lots of them. But there's nothing wrong with spouting BS, even when everyone knows it's BS. It's accepted. Remember Chretien's casual lies? Remember how he said he kept in touch with the people by visiting local bars. Except none of the local bars had ever seen him. Remember how he said he spoke to the homeless? What a joke. Was he at all ashamed of those comments? Nope. Were the Canadian electorate upset? Nope. Mulroney was a liar. Clark was a liar. Trudeau was a very good liar. Or at least, he put more effort into his lies than Chretien, who apparently never really cared if people knew he was lying or not. But it wasn't like Trudeau was ashamed of lying. He knocked over the Clark government and ran an entire election campaign on how a 7cent tax on gas would destroy the economy. Then he put a larger tax in place shortly after taking office. He ran an entire election campaing against wage and price controls, then instituted them within months of winning office. Find me one single member of the previous Liberal cabinet who did not lie routinely in the House. Ah yes, because the liberals did it, it's ok for the conservatives to do it? What's next, will it be ok for the conservatives to steal money because the liberals set a precedence? Why don't you listen and give your opinion. My point was, that it's possible that fry made an innocent mistake. If you believe that hedy is smart enough to not get confused, then you give her too much credit Just kidding. You mean like re-opening the same-sex marriage debate

If anything, Canada is under more of a threat of being attacked now, because we are in afghanistan, then we were before we helped out your country in afghanistan. So why do you seem to be implying that Canadians are freeloading when it is us that put ourselves in jeopardy to help your country (not that I am opposed to helping out our neighbor & ally).

"random" was not my word, I was simply agreeing with another post. How much of the Muslim world supports bin laden, and how much of it opposes bin laden? How many muslims in north america support bin laden, and how many oppose him?

What exactly do you mean? What I mean is that you appear to be opposed to "faith-based arbitration" for Muslims, which I assume is why you started this thread. So, are you also opposed to "fait-based arbitration" for Jews and Christians?

From these first two paragraphs, I thought for a moment that perhaps you see Muslims the same way I do. That is, you realize that there are a few wackos mixed in with a majority of moderates. But your second paragraph disappointed me, as I realized you don't get it. Not all muslims are whackos. Why don't you get out and meet some of these moderates, they might change your opinion. Or, if you can't do that, at least type "muslims condemn terrorism" into google. It will only take a minute, what do you have to loose?

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I don't want to respond in case I am misintrepreting what you are saying.

Hedy Fry eventually apologized for the incident: Link Yes, the apology was a bit late, but at least it came eventually. How long will it take MacKay to acknowledge what he said? Is it possible that Hedy Fry actually thought she recieved a letter from the mayor? No one ever said she was the brightest... But that being said, let's say that Hedy's comments were a complete lie...would that make you more likely, or less likely to vote for her?

My mistake, my wording was probably misleading. What I meant to say is that you are advocating that we do not spend money on these babies (and therefore presumably they would die), and I think you were at least implying that the parents should have aborted (as opposed to a forced abortion). We all must draw the line somewhere. If a treatment is going to cost one trillion dollars to save one life, then unfortunately it's not realistic to save that person's life. But somewhere between one cent and one trillion dollars, we all must draw the line. I think I just happen to draw that line a little higher than you. I would much rather see more money going to healthcare and saving people's lives than some of the places that the money is going to now.

So, are you saying that they should have been aborted? Just because we as a society don't want to pay to save their lives? If the parents choose to have an abortion, that is one thing, but forcing abortions? Who are we to decide whether their lives are worth living, or if they will have a "normal" life? Since the twins are too young to make that choice, it should be left up to the parents to decide if they believe the lives are worth saving. How can we just say to the parents "sorry, we don't have enough money to keep your kids alive..." If there's not enough money for hip & knee replacements, then we should spend more on healthcare. I may be a financial conservative, but I still believe in spending money on important things like saving lives.

If a politician is honest with Canadian's he or she will lose the support of the country. That is not a very good excuse to lie. Especially lying about something that was caught on tape. In the end, lying about it will most likely result in mackay loosing the support of the country more than if he had come clean. I don't think Canadians like being lied to. Incidentally, though I can not speak for other Canadians, a politician that is honest is much more likely to get my support.

Neither of you think that a politician lying is a big deal? I guess I expect & hope for a little more honesty from politicians than you do.

Less than appreciative? Who is helping out who in Afghanistan?

Huh? All of those are examples of cowardly, random attacks on innocent people. Now, what do those have to do with the Sharia law which has apparently been taking place in Canada since 1991?

A proof is a proof. Frankly, I learned most of what I need to know about Islam between 8:45 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., EDT on September 11, 2001. I take it you are choosing to go with stereotypes.

You mean wife beating related to the Sharia law which was sanctioned by the Ontario government? If you or anyone else wants to make this claim, then please back it up with some proof rather than just speculating.

No, I think my post proved otherwise. No one on the left is romancing people who advocate the death of homosexuals (and if there are any "leftists" who would defend this type of action, then I am ashamed to call myself a leftist, but so far I have seen none). Just because a moderate muslim identifies themself as a Muslim, and someone who advocates the death of homosexuals also identifies themself as a Muslim, does not mean these two people share the same beliefs on the treatment of homosexuals. This is what I have been trying to argue all along. If you still disagree with me, then perhaps trying thinking of Islam as two separate religions, call them "Moderate Islam" and "Extreme Islam". I think you will find that the left will defend "moderate Islam", but I don't think anyone on the left will defend the type of muslim who advocates the death of homosexuals.

Where? Your definition of Sharia law that you got from a different website? Are you actually suggesting that all of those points you listed have been taking place in Canada since 1991? I'm very surprised I have not heard of this, can you please provide a link that suggests THIS definition of Sharia law has been taking place in Canada? What claim? I don't believe I made any claims about it being violent or not. I simply asked for more information to back up someone else's claim that this Sharia law which has been taking place in Canada since 1991 involves violence.

No, I do not equate Muslim with terrorism, and to suggest such a thing is personally insulting to me. I only brought it up because it happened to be in the link that YOU provided, and because some people are STILL in denial that Muslims are condemning terrorism, despite all of the other links I have provided on other threads.

When questioned about the incident, Mackay said "I made no such comment..." Sorry, but that's a lie, period. Not to mention this: "I made no derogatory or discriminatory remark towards any member of this house, Mr. Speaker". Also a lie, period. If you STILL want to split hairs, fine, how do you feel about someone who splits hair to distort the truth by making people think he didn't infer she was a dog?

Do you have proof of this? Or do you simply go by stereotypes?