I miss Reagan

Ya kinda like Japan or Germany arch nemesis' that became our allies. When will the left understand strategic alliances. My enemy's enemy is my friend. Remember WW2 we had a friend named Joseph Stalin? Are you kidding? He used WMD on his own people after Gulf War 1. I'll side with Hillary on this one:

Alright then why give religious leaders a pass to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to marry them?

You're right. But I was responding to your question about how gay marriage would affect those religiously opposed. We're not talking about race, we're talking about sexual preference.

A fitting eulogy. But what scared the #$@# out of me was that at least 17% of this country would agree with his dilusional rantings.

An arrogant assumption. Even if he did destroy his WMD's, being the kind hearted and compliant fellow that he is, part of the resolution was to disclose, to provide evidence or suffer the consequences. The most likely scenario is that the WMD's are in Syria and Iran.And I still maintain:

Talk about discrimination. Remember you asked the question, how gay marriage would in any way affect those religiously opposed. There are two ways right there. The use of their facilities as well as being discriminated against for jobs in the government.

Hijacking the word marriage from religious groups isn't the way to do it. This seems to euphamize what I was saying before, that the point of gay marriage is to shove it in the face of those with religious oppositions and say "ha, you're wrong". It reminds me of the gay couple who begins making out just to offend the old lady who is obviously uncomfortable with it. Apparently not. We're now looking at religions being forced to rent their halls out for gay weddings. It also affects civil servants who are forced to marry gay couples or lose their jobs. It smacks of reverse discrimination. Apples and watermelons.

Exactly. It comes down to a word. Why can't gay people leave the word "marriage" alone. Don't change the definition. Why allow 1% of the population step on the toes of the majority. People of all religions (not just the evangelical scapegoats) are opposed and are offended by it. If it's just a word what's the big deal for gays? It becomes more and more obvious that the purpose of this is to shove it in the faces of those who's beliefs don't coincide with it. Union of two men, or two women. Different than a union of a man and woman. No more no less, just different.

Ya that explanation doesn't satisfy me. All it is, is verbal ornamentation from the PM govt. saying that civil unions are unequal. An opinion that is false because civil unions would gaurantee gays the same rights just not called marriage. It's very confusing considering we as a country are supposed to support diversity yet we are refusing to admit that gay couples are different.

Not an option. No one really has a good explanation as to why not?

Somehow these kinds of stories get ignored by the mainstream liberal media which portrays the left as victims of disenfranchisment. What I find funny were all the cases of cars bearing W' 04 stickers that were vandalized, I'm only assuming by "tolerant" lefties.

What is wrong with civil union?

Ya I know sorry, I just heard it on the radio. If we're going say gay marriage is an equal rights issue, how can we allow religious leaders to refuse service to gay members of their congregations. It doesn't sound too equal to me.

I thought we were just granting 'rights' for gay couples to wed. I didn't know that religious groups would be forced to allow gay couples to use their facilities. And of course the logical next step is to force religious officials to officiate in the marriages. I knew it'd come but I didn't think it'd happen this quick.

How do you come to this arrogant conclusion? simply because they voted for Kerry. This reminds me a letter to the editor in the paper I read from a Kerry supporter. She basically chastised Canadian arrogance for assuming she'd want to move to Canada just because Bush won. Oh Black Dog, you are obviously an intelligent guy, but I believe your hatred of George Bush clouds your thinking. In all honesty do you really believe Bush's agenda is against freedom?

Trial-Error, You might be taken more seriously if you dropped the venom and argued your point rather than attack August 1991.

I heard on the radio this morning that a lesbian couple and the human rights board is sueing the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organisation, for refusing to allow them to use their hall for a wedding in BC. Off we go slip sliding away...

The World Series in baseball is named such because it was named after a newspaper in NYC called the New York World, not because it was supposed to be a world championship. Originally it was called the "World's Series".

Ya Colmes is the funny lookin guy. I like the format of the show. They have an obvious time limit for each guy which prevents it from turning into a yelling match like crossfire often did. Colmes is openly liberal, and believe he also is a news anchor for Fox, but he's pretty fair.

Ya it's a breath of fresh air to finally have Fox up here. But I have to disagree with you on the bias issue Stoker. I find that the actual reporting of the news is fair and balanced. Certain programs are biased like O'Reilly and Cavuto. But even Hannity has Alan Colmes there keeping him honest.

I like it.BD I've substituted Canada for Alberta in the hopes that maybe you'll send this in as a letter to editors of newspapers across Canada so maybe we can lay to rest this silly issue of parading the Maple Leaf around the world on our backpacks etc.

There it is, great evidence that no body likes the police. Or at least that the enforcers of the rules get stuck in the middle of the controvercy (how bout some sympathy for the good ol' USA). MS does appear to troll. Many of his topics and posts appear to be attempting to offend or bait others into an emotional response. An example would be the topic "Should we ban the Catholic Church, scumbags of the earth". That's pretty incendiary in my books. That being said Greg walks a fine line. He has to balance it between becoming a boring political blog and degenerating into a tit for tat ad hominem circus. This is a political web site and politics incite strong feelings so I think there should be some room for rhetoric and emotion. If there wasn't intended to be a some jabing why provide the emotcons :angry: etc. The tough part is figuring out where to draw the line.

You lefties are so opportunistic with your use of "illegal". The word works well when you talk about Iraq but never fits into a discussion about intervention in Kosovo or Afganistan for instance. Very duplicituous. Still, invading Iraq was sanctioned by resolution after resolution mandating Iraq disarm, disclose or suffer the consequences. Nevertheless, the law effectively ceases to exist when it is not enforced. The UN is a lame duck organization that really has no authority in the world any longer.

I'm just kinda messing. Anyway here's some quotes. Pretty incriminating comments... that are never reported by the press. Yet how many times do we view clips of Bush talking about WMD's.

I'd like to see the radical left move up here. Then they'd be sequestered. Stuck in a country that no one pays attention to. No big US stage to rant upon. Just disappear into obscurity and make the US a stronger conservative fortress.