Oddman

Understandable. Just like an ex-smoker tends to be very anti-smoking more than anyone else. Or someone who decided to become vegetarian....and now can't stand even the smell of meat. Very well said. And I don't loathe people who identify themselves as Christian either. I do feel that some people just say they are Christian but do not act very Christ-like. Christ was not judgemental, he was forgiving. Being anti-gay is not a forgiving way of living one's life.

There is a difference between: - crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers and - crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights. Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires. I agree with you 100%. It always amazes me when I hear people support GITMO. I wonder, if Americans were captured in a war, say in Iraq before their army fell, if they would support the same kind of prison.

So you've decided Harper doesn't embody any Christian values while at the same time openly saying you don't know what they are..... SOrry, I forgot to press the sarcasm button. But I was raised in the Roman Ctholic School system for 12 years, as well as have been baptized, had first comunion, confession and have been confirmed. It is due to my experience inside Christianity why I now feel I am better off without it.

Oddman in regards to Harper and his "God Bless Canada" you're the odd ball. Poll respondents give blessing to Harper's 'God bless Canada' Even our Constitution starts out with the words "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God..." or how about the national anthem? .....God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. And we always seem to ask for God to bless our country on Remembrance Day. And I agree with the others,you do have a religiious chip on your shoulder along with that big 2x4 chip for the conservatives. Here's another quote from Harper during the 2004 campaign - "We don't listen to polls." Yeah, yeah...lots of god references...nice work...I had no idea. My so-called chip for the Cons is based on our completely different view of how Canada should be governed/led. Or maybe you would like to tell me about your feelings topwards the NDP and we'll see who wears the bigger chip.

In all seriousness, anyone who feels insulted by that should leave Canada. I would be more than willing to help pay their way to some more suitable home. In all seriousness, that statement is ridiculous. Most people who call themselves Christians are for the most part non-practising. Just do a poll and see how many Canadians actually attend chruch and you'll see it is far below 50%. Another fundamental error in your reasoning is this: Harper does not embody Christianity. He is apparently one of the most foul-mouthed politicians in the land. Oh, I would like do move to Honduras...if you would please deposit the airfare into my paypal account I would appreciate it. It's one thing to be religious, it is another thing to just say "Hey, I am religious...now let's get back to the f***ing negotiations..." What percentage of Canadians consider themselves Christian is the question you're not asking. But how many Canadians attend church, or what Harper may or may not embody are side bar issues at best. Again, Canada has a background that happens to be Christian, so for a PM to say God Bless Canada once in a while is not out of line, unless you've got a religious chip on your shoulder. Oh, and more bad news: I hear there are Christians in Honduras. Listen carefully - saying "Hey, I am Christian" while not embodying any Christian values (whatever that may be) mean s you are not Christian. It would be like me saying "Hey, I am Bhuddist." "Why Oddman?" - "Beacuase I said so." I don't have a religious chip on my shoulder - I just believe it should be kept as far away from politics as possible.

Sooter Libby isn't "taking the fall" for anything. He's charged with lying under oath, not for "outing a CIA operative". No one has been charged with "outing a CIA operative". You need to better understand the American laws related to that type of crime, because you're way off base. But it all comes down to the Dems and their human shields as policy advocates. It was absolutely legitimate to expose Wilson as a liar. The VP didn't send him to Niger as he liked to imply, it was his wife. If he was so worried about her privacy, maybe he shouldn't have submitted an Op-Ed to the New York Times. You can't enter the political arena and not expect people to call you on your lies and false statements. No more human shields in politics! Ann Coulter is right! Some of Wilson's Lies: Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters You cannot lie like that and not expect to be called on it. And it's especially dangerous when your wife is a CIA operative. What was he thinking? He was probably thinking "Gee, if Bush and Cheaney and Wolfy and Condi and Rummy can lie through their teeth about a plethora of subjects, all for the purpose of going to war, then surely I can tell half truths about a piece of paper and get away with it." Alas, he is not as skilled or connected as the mafia in the White House.

I have to agree. I am no supporter of the US or their actions, but Sheehan is a boob. Her son willingly went to Iraq, yet she claims 'he didn't want to go'. As for the deserters, they have the right to be 'conscientious objectors', however that is up to the US gov't to decide if they meet the criteria. Right - a boob is someone who calls a woman a name after losing her son for American lies. Legally, sure - it is up to the US government to decide the fates of these men. But there is a conflict - these men disagree with the US position on this war. If Harper ever wanted to send me to a fictional war based on economics I would do the same thing.

In all seriousness, anyone who feels insulted by that should leave Canada. I would be more than willing to help pay their way to some more suitable home. In all seriousness, that statement is ridiculous. Most people who call themselves Christians are for the most part non-practising. Just do a poll and see how many Canadians actually attend chruch and you'll see it is far below 50%. Another fundamental error in your reasoning is this: Harper does not embody Christianity. He is apparently one of the most foul-mouthed politicians in the land. Oh, I would like do move to Honduras...if you would please deposit the airfare into my paypal account I would appreciate it. It's one thing to be religious, it is another thing to just say "Hey, I am religious...now let's get back to the f***ing negotiations..."

Allah is Arabic for God. Incidentally, I have never heard Harper finish any speech in French with a reference to God. The phrase "God Bless Canada" does not translate well into FrenchI suspect the equivalent Muslim phrase would be something like 'May the light of Allah shine upon Canada'. Using the phrase 'God Bless Canada' in speeches made in the role of Prime Minister is not appropriate because it is insulting to many Canadians who do not believe in his brand of Christianity. How do you think people would react if a PM starting ending speehes with Muslim blessings? I agree completely. Especially since Harper said this after the, ahem, terror arrests. Then, also immediately following the arrests he conveniently announces 1.4 billion in new intelligence/defence spending. His speeches are now filled with "terror", "terrorist threat" and other Frum-like stanzas. To add God on top of that is a cheap ploy to scare the populous.

And your knowledge of history is so deep that you can tell us all about every other Canadian government which has ever been in power, right? Well, I don't need to live 40, 50, 100 years ago to come to that conclusion. I base it on several elements of modern politics, especially media coverage. With the amount of exposure there is for Question Period, for example, the Tory performances are disgusting and way, way over the top. It's embarassing, as a Canadian, to watch. I am in no way saying the Liberals were great in the House, but it feels like the Cons are so giddy and cocky that they will cheer and hollar about any random comment made. Even if Pearson were this embarassing to watch, hardly anyone would actually watch it due to lack of coverage, and that's why it is the most self-congratulatory AND embarassing government we have ever had. For smugness, the Mulroney government was worse, overall. For open contempt for the opposition the Chretien and Martin governments really did win the day in the House. For massive arrogance, you can't beat Trudeau and his senior ministers. For self-serving and embarrassingly classless performances the Chretien opposition was the worst (I still remember Sheila Copps jumping over chairs as she screeched at a tory cabinet minister). All of this was on television. But television really has nothing to do with whether previous governments were more "self contragulatory" than the Harper Conservatives. I think what you mean to say is "I hate conservatives", isn't it? I mean, that is the gist of your message, and it has nothing to do with how they behave in the House. I would presume it's a wish for Canada's good health from a very religious man. You have a problem with religious people wishing Canada well? I have a problem with a leader who fuses religion in with his message. I believe that the church has absolutely no business being mixed with politics. Harper is sounding like GWB more and more every day. All of the governments you cited did everything you said they did, and as I stated earlier I am not defending any previous government. I do not hate the Condervatives, I know a few Conservative MPs - what I do not like is the way they conduct themselves in the House, and I feel it is far beyond patting themselves on the back. They act like babies. They don't answer questions and when they do it turns out to be either a half truth or an outright lie (lower income tax hike, softwood lumber deal that was not really in place, Rona Ambrose...pretty much everything she has to say...and of course the constant "here here" for nothing in particular). All this from a government who was supposed to clean up government and be more transparent.

And your knowledge of history is so deep that you can tell us all about every other Canadian government which has ever been in power, right? Well, I don't need to live 40, 50, 100 years ago to come to that conclusion. I base it on several elements of modern politics, especially media coverage. With the amount of exposure there is for Question Period, for example, the Tory performances are disgusting and way, way over the top. It's embarassing, as a Canadian, to watch. I am in no way saying the Liberals were great in the House, but it feels like the Cons are so giddy and cocky that they will cheer and hollar about any random comment made. Even if Pearson were this embarassing to watch, hardly anyone would actually watch it due to lack of coverage, and that's why it is the most self-congratulatory AND embarassing government we have ever had. Harper said "God Bless Canada" the other day. WTF is that?

I know that I am smarter than you, yet I am nice enough a person to not look down on you for it. You are too ----ing dumb to realize that I mean I will abide by the laws of the land. If the Canadian governments says it is okay to bash & beat gays, then I will ablige them, if they tell me not to, I will not. Pretty simple logic, don't ya think? As far as answering your question, I don't feel compelled to give you a reason, that you will attempt to trash and call bigotry or whatever you human rights pussies use to make you sleep better at night. I am a believer in the Bible and believe in the traditional definition of marriage and even though you aethiests don't buy that as a reason, I don't feel the need to give you more. In the same sentence, I don't think that gays are being oppresssed if they did not have the right to marriage. I think your kind of people are the main reason we have problem children running around, because you are one of the people who would call spanking a child a criminal activity. If my becoming a clansman would get people like you out of Canada, I'd gladly wear the hood!! I am done with you, don't bother responding. I loathe your kind of people! Aw, did I make you upset? Poor lil baby! I am agnostic, not an aetheist. You are not smarter than me, and I know this by reading your statement about beating up gay people if it were legal. You see, smart people THINK FOR THEMSELVES, while you say that you need the government to think for you. You are perverting the Bible. I can only be thankful that it is you who is the minority. Yeah, that's right...you. Oh, and by the way - those who are most vocal about their contempt for the gay lifestyle are almost always closet homosexuals...but no worries, your secret is safe with me. No go turn on Pat Robertson...schmoe.

Maybe try a few more shakes! Iran does not believe in the second coming or 'end of days' and neither does Israel. Bush may, but he hasn't send any troops to Israel yet as far as I know. Check your facts - Iran's leader (I haven't the time to copy and paste his name, nor can I spell it) has spoken several times about the apocalypse. He also believes the Mohammed speaks through him. Bush has made similiar statements. And Israel, or at least Zionism, believes that the chosen people will soon be chosen, which is why there has been somewhat of an Exodus back to Jerusalem in the last 7 years or so.

The beauty of free speech is to allow opinions like sam's. If you call yourself a human rights activist, you need to learn that his opinion is just as valuable as yours. How dare you accuse him of hate speeches? If he is against "gay rights"(laff), that is his choice, it may not be yours, but who cares? It is idiots like you that try to infect people with the notion that you pro gay world is the only way it should be, well, many of us disagree. Just because you see it as hate, does not make it so. Alright, let's discuss then. If I don't feel that right-wingers should have the same rights as the rest of us, would you say "Hey, that's great...way to support free speech."...? I didn't call myself a human rights activist. I feel, and I am well within my rights, that if someone (Sam for example) feels certain humans are not as worthy to have cartain rights it is a message of intolerance and hate. We could go on and on with the conondrum of free speech and rights - but I still would like to know why gays and lesbians are considered to be such a threat to anyone's PRIVATE religious beliefs. Do tell.... It has nothing to do with having the "right" to gay marriage, I was talking about his right to disagree with it. You seem to want to take that right away from him. You are a bunch of hypocrits, claiming to want human rights granted for everything from screwing a dog to wearing a turbin, because these people claim to be oppressed, yet you would tell sam to shut up and take away his right to free speech because he is against gay marriage. SO WHAT if you think it is hate & intolerance? Let him say how he feels! If more people would say what they think, regardless of how people feel about it, maybe we'd have less of this politically correct BS. If you feel the Canadian rules make you oppressed, then leave! If the Canadian government decides to overturn the gay marriage law and you don't like it, well... too bad, but I will not tell you not to talk about it, like you tried to do with Sam. If it does not get overturned, big deal, it is still okay to dislike gay marriage and talk about it until the cows come home. I give a rat's ass what these human rights pussies will call intolerance & hate speech, because nothing EVER pleases these useless (bad word)! Someone needs to,like sam says, stand up and say what they truly feel, if not, it will not stop until the whole white english straight male population is put in jail for hate crimes(for calling them fags or some shit). The only problem with putting all these people in jail is: who will be left in the work force who isn't unionized? If you ask me(not that you would), I say much of this human rights talk is causing more racism towards minorities and it will eventually explode into a nasty situation that could have been avoided. Haha - good one. Before that post I almost thought you had something intelligent to say...I guess not. Let me say what I feel. What if someone did not want blacks to have rights? Is that ok to you? After all, some people interpret the Bible to state that blacks are lesser. So, going by your logic it is just free speech if you say that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote. See, the thing is, you remind me of people who lived early in the 20th century - who didn't want women to vote because they were, well...women. So, as a person who is excercising MY free speech, let me say this. You have written things that are on par with KKK material, but you still have not provided a reason as to why you think, or why anyone would think, that gays do not deserve the same rights as you. Will you answer that question, or just fill the next post with more rantings about nothing in particular?

The beauty of free speech is to allow opinions like sam's. If you call yourself a human rights activist, you need to learn that his opinion is just as valuable as yours. How dare you accuse him of hate speeches? If he is against "gay rights"(laff), that is his choice, it may not be yours, but who cares? It is idiots like you that try to infect people with the notion that you pro gay world is the only way it should be, well, many of us disagree. Just because you see it as hate, does not make it so. Alright, let's discuss then. If I don't feel that right-wingers should have the same rights as the rest of us, would you say "Hey, that's great...way to support free speech."...? I didn't call myself a human rights activist. I feel, and I am well within my rights, that if someone (Sam for example) feels certain humans are not as worthy to have cartain rights it is a message of intolerance and hate. We could go on and on with the conondrum of free speech and rights - but I still would like to know why gays and lesbians are considered to be such a threat to anyone's PRIVATE religious beliefs. Do tell....

The Conservative government are the most self-congratulaTory government in the history of our nation. Seriously... They are also tearing a page out of the McGuinty handbook - answering every last question with "The Liberals did this, and the Liberals did not do that...and the Liberals, the Liberals, the Liberals...." They give State of the Union-ish standing ovations if Rona Ambrose farts. They have the most phony "here, heres" any of us have ever heard. Harper's overly-rehearsed way of answering questions is starting to look like a film clip stuck between frames. "Well, Mr. Speaker (arms slightly wave open as his head dips to the left), I am surprised to hear the opposition worry about (place issue here) when they had 13 years to (place issue here). This Conservative government is dedicated to (place issue here) unlike the former Liberal government who squandered money the was supossed to go towards (place issue here)." The Cons are taking soap box politics to a whole new level.

Uh, I think you are mixing up parts of different christian theories. The second coming scenario happens after Israel is wiped off the map. I haven't heard of any groups wanting to bring about the second coming by strengthening Israel. Defending it against her enemies is not part of some conspiracy, it's just a result of Hitler's extermination. Also, the bible refers to Israelis realizing that Jesus was the son of God, which isn't exactly conversion to Christianity, but I could see how some missionaries might be in Israel with this teaching. This thread has so many inflammatory posts I have to shake my monitor to see if it is real. Bush hates the press, not Jews. Bush is also an 'end of days' leader - same with Iran and Israel. Also, he is a pro-Israel leader who sides with Israel on most issues regarding the Palestinian conflict.

The RCMP arrest 17 kids planning to kill thousands of Canadians with a bomb and you are worried about French Speaking Canadians. If multiculturalism was only languages on a cereal box, then there wouldn't really be a problem, would there? I suggest you take a broader view of the world, and think about how northern North America should decide to make its place. Um, the RCMP arrested 17 kids who are ALLEGED to have terrorist ambitions. And we wonder why traditional Muslims think we discriminate. This case, of the 17 offenders, reeks of entrapment. Alomst like they took overzealous skinheads and baited them into plotting to kill Jews. It just doesn't have any sophistication - and that word, "sphistication" was widely used when 911 happened. This is more like young Muslim men saying "Yeah, the West does have a foreign policy that discriminates against us, so I am not sure what to do. I guess, possibly, maybe I would like to bomb something. Because hey, I am young and not sophisticated." If you think this was a big time terrorist plot foiled methinks you have a lot to learn about the difference between "news" and "reality".

Well, I won't bother quoting the wors from Samstranger or whatever his/her name is...hate speech should never be posted more than once. But he/she claims that pro-life, anti-gay themes in the Blue Tory manifesto are core Tory values. When do we talk about human rights. Oh, because the Tories couldn't care less about human rights. What about the environment (yes, yes...we know about the 13 years of liberal neglect...but spending the first 5 months in office pointing fingers at the former government still does nothing to clean our air). What about the fact that Tories DO NOT OWN GOD!!!! I mean, they want to privatize almost everything, but to try and stake claim on what Christianity should mean to people (i.e - anti-gay marriage)...it's these kind of policies that can really hurt a nation. Just one question though - why would anyone be concerned over whether a gay couple marry? Does it mean you will have to begin having anal sex with your wife or, god forbid, go down on her once in a while? Blue Tories diguise "hate" as "values" making me wonder why anyone would want to be in that camp.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all either, but it's probably a little naive to think that nothing of great consequence gets resolved by such meetings. Personally, I like the idea of a strong world government, but I'd rather see it be open and cooperative than closed and corporate. I found the paragraph at the end about Kyoto quite interesting, and it makes me wonder if Harper is really no friend to the forces of globalization. Well, Harper was a Bilerberg guy for a year or two - causing theorists to surmize he was being groomed for his current stint as PM. And while some may see this as just a gathering of minds to shoot the s**t, I think the privacy angel is to prevent people from knowing that some government officials present were discussing policy matters - something that is illegal for government officials to discuss while they are still in office. They let one journalist in - from the Economist. Hmmmmm....

And I am surprised people still place the welfare of their wallet over the welfare of their planet. People need to make a choice - the environment or the economy. It's that simple. Of course, many believe those who would sacrifice some moeny for the environment are scary, bleeding heart liberals - maybe, but at least those people know how to see past next week or next tax season. Kudos to Quebec, we should all follow suit.

Hi, You seem to be responding to both me and Insom at the same time, but I think you're attributing some of his/her comments to me incorrectly. Either way... It wasn't Insom's, ahem, "Calling a spade a spade" that I took issue with. It was the unclear intent in doing so. I'm pretty sure Insom wasn't just stating that Blacks weren't the first to inhabit the US just for kicks. There was a deeper reason; I just don't know what it was. (and despite the fact that it's a maple leaf forum, Insom was focusing on the US. Note the title of the discussion.) It's hard to say whether there was much rape and pillage among Native Americans or Indians. (I use the terms interchangeably.) When I was in school, they didn't teach much about Native Americans. But I suspect there was more strife than most people know among them. I also suspect Native American nations saw each other as just that: separate nations, and not as one big indistinguishable glob of red skins. Just my 2 cents. Thanks. TI I didn't intend to draw you two together at all. You seem a very reasonable person, while some days I have my doubts about Insom. There definitely was more to his comment about the 'we were here before blacks' and I didn't find this acceptable at all, hence the previous post. There were widespread abuses to Indians in some situations. Residential schools would be one example of an unacceptable treatment of children. However, these mistakes are not my mistakes and I feel it would be rather racist to hold other white people (as well as every other ethnicity in Canada) accountable for the mistakes of our ancestors. It would be like me saying that because the Jew's killed Jesus we should hate them all, its a ridiculous argument and can't be supported. No one should be held responsible for someone else's actions, especially someone who's probably not directly related and has been dead for a few hundred years. I thought the Romans had killed Jesus...but wait, didn't he marry and have kids? Yeah, that's right...nobody killed Jesus!!

I don't know if I want to get into this topic since it's ancient history. The only possible use in discussing it now is that future vote-counting will be better organized. US elections are tough because voters often have many decisions to make. Note too that in the US, electoral lists and ballot counting are all a state jurisdiction. The US has no equivalent to Elections Canada.There is no doubt that Bush Jnr got more popular votes than either Gore or Kerry so the only dispute concerns electoral college votes. In that sense, the majority got the president they chose. Civics class teaches that democratic government is the expression of the people. That's not true. Representative democracy is a method to pick a leader. The 2000 and 2004 elections were so close that either candidate could have won, and flipping a coin would have been a suitable method to pick the winner. What's more important is that there is a method to pick one leader. I was happy to see the Supreme Court step in in 2000 and make a quick decision. Since the Court split on partisan lines, it was as if they'd flipped a coin. When you said you didn't want to get into this story because it was ancient history, you pretty much summed up the Republican Party's mantra - "Don't worry fellas, we can do whatever we want because soon it will all go away, or we will be in such a position (i.e. - Iraq) that we can tell everyone that this is the situation now so quit living in the past." What a better way to giove yourself a blank cheque. It's a strange world when we want to give Barry Bonds a hard time an put an * beside his accomplishments but we give Bush Jr. all the breaks because Hey, quit living in the past.

If we freeze the border we would end up freezing our economy as well. I can see why something like that can be important, but unfortunately it would not be practical.

Are you suggesting that we refuse immigrants to Canada because our election law is lax?Oddman, if you feel electoral fraud is a serious issue, and non-citizens are illegally voting, and they are voting disproportionately for the federal Liberal Party, and these illegal votes are causing Liberal MPs to win when they otherwise would not, and this has changed the federal government Canadians want, then start a thread on how the electoral law should be tightened. Changing immigration law to fix our electoral law seems to me like forbidding the sale of knives to prevent murder. Oddman, forget about voters. Most Canadians are more concerned about their neighbours. An immigrant to Canada is going to be someone's neighbour. What neighbours should we let into Canada? Oddman, what neighbours would you like to have? I am not suggesting we refuse immigrants to Canada because of our lax elections laws...I don't know how you came to that far-reaching conclusion. What I AM saying is that there is a link between our lax election laws and immigration. As I pointed out earlier, some ridings have a ridiculous % of people showing up who are not on any lists. Also, and I wish I could find the old link to cite, the Star once published a piece by Pierre Kingsley, Director of Elections Canada, which stated that landed immigrants are eligible to vote. The following day there was a correction, but only on the online version of the paper.