I miss Reagan

You radical leftists are so violent.

This is why we already have special forces inside their borders. But wait, I think I better cut and save that comment for when all you lefties start saying they don't have any WMD's. The best are all the quotes from the UN, Clinton, Albright etc. claiming that Iraq had WMDs. Somehow it has become the sole claim of the Bush Admin.

There's a pretty good book called "Why I hate Canadians". You might enjoy it. I did until he started bashing Albertans.

I love it.Kimmy has it right. Being a proud Albertan is something that differentiates us from the rest of the country. We are very different in many ways. I guess you could say we are a "distinct society". I don't think we want to be linked to positions taken by the national government in many cases. I remember visiting parliament in Ottawa when I was younger and feeling like it was all foreign. It didn't really feel like my country, I guess I felt excluded as an Albertan. I also felt pretty small when they showed a lazer light film on the parliment building that had some subtle Alberta bashing in it by portraying us as bigots. I don't identify myself with Canada but neither completely with the US. Alberta is just right. I love this place!

Good post by August 1991:

This was the same argument given last time the same sex issue came up. "It wouldn't be legally feasible given the current language of the Charter. Marriage will always be between a man and a woman." Interesting how subjective the Charter becomes when you want to change something. Fallacious fear-mongering. And who would it be that I'm trying to frighten? You? I give you more credit than that. The only fallacious statements I see are those of reverse hatred mislabeling people as homophobic and anti-gay based on affirming the consequent. Bad form. Osama Bin Laden "right wing boogeyman", Al Qaeda "right wing boogeyman", Biased press "right wing boogeyman". I can almost hear JFK rallying "there's nothting to fear, but fear itself" or is it M. Moore chanting "there is no terrorist threat!". Right and all people are equal, given the right to marry one member of the opposite sex. No one of any sexual orientation, race, or religion is exempt. That is the definition of marriage. However, if we choose to alter that definition for one group we must alter it for all providing they do not infringe on the rights of others. Thus polygamy is fair as long as all parties are consenting adults. Thus beastiality is fair as long as it is not cruel to the animal. Thus child porn is fair so long as the images are not real but computer generated. As for your argument that polygamy is illegal, so was gay marriage until recently. I thought that is what I have been doing. Opening the door to gay marriage is opening a pandora's box.

I wouldn't mind taking out Iran while we're in the neighbourhood . I have a feeling this time we'll use some surgical strikes to take out nuclear capabilities and the like.

Where, in the Charter, is the term "sexual orientation" used? It's not.

Well if we are now taking the position that one year ago there was a group of people in this country (homosexuals) who we discriminated against by not giving them equal rights, we can assume that today there are groups of people who we are also discriminating against who, in the future, will be afforded equal rights. Polygamists, child porn advocates etc. And if we are determining that homosexuals deserve equal treatment with respect to marriage how can we not force pastors, bishops to marry gays? There would be a huge stink if bishops or pastors refused to marry black members of their congregation for example.

In other words a slippery slope that could include: polygamists, the obese, blonds, supporters of victimless child porn (artifical computer images of children), supporters of beastiality... activist judges, a serious problem in this country. the verbal ornamentation is giving me goosebumps

Where were the progressives then the Charter was drawn up and did not include sexual orientation? Why all of a sudden this change when 5 years ago Chretien and the liberals overwhelmingly supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and claimed it always would be? The problem is this is not an interpretation of the Charter it's manipulation of it to suit political purposes. If the Charter is "a living document" what is the purpose of having it in the first place?

I laughed, I cried.... I cheered!

Paul Martin says he'd be willing to have an election over the gay marriage issue. I'd love to see Harper call him on that bluff. Anyway, I'm glad to see that some people are consistent because you can't grant rights to one group without granting them to another group. The problem is, I believe the majority of those who are for gay marriage are likely opposed to legalising polygamy. This is not only inconsistent but bigoted perhaps .

Ya ya. I was trying to make the point that his analogy was stupid. No. A phobia implies an overwhelming fear of something. The label "homophobe" is incitive, intended as an insult and misrepresents the opinions of those who disagree with gay marriage.

Based on the sampling of hollywood liberals who promised to leave in both 2000 and 2004 but still remain, I think the odds are pretty good that there won't be a big line up.

Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps I should call you an anti-semite, because you don't agree with the Jewish lifestyle. You don't keep the sabbath holy by worshiping on Saturday, you don't believe in God. You believe in absolute separation of church and state. I guess by your criteria you'd be a bigot as well hmm. So since we're going to be fair to all peoples even though their beliefs are different from ours, tell me on what basis you'll prevent polygamous marriage?

American Influx?I was amazed at what a big story this was up here. The press latched on to a few sour grapes democrats and hollywood loonies threatening to leave the land of the free for greener Canadian pastures. Peter Mansbridge almost seemed to glow as he proudly reported this story numerous times. I think Canadians loved this because somehow it massaged our delicate Canadian egos kinda like we love to brag when they film a US movie up here or we love to talk about the newest TV star who is "Canadian you know". Or maybe we just loved to think that this was finally the approval we so desperately need from the Americans that Canada is better. But in the end I guess Canada didn't look so good after all.

Yes there are, but those who are for gay marriage seem to be wilfully ignorant, I think due to their desire shove it in the face of religionists. This is evidenced by their unwillingness to compromise on civil unions, which would give them the same rights without highjacking the definition of marriage. Besides it's pretty unfair of the leftist press to call those who disagree with the gay lifestyle homophobes or gay haters. But I guess it's the same people who call Harper a fascist, Albertans bigots, and Bush a racist. Plays well with the radical Chomsky crowd.

I think you're right, but IMV this is mostly the result of the press and the progressives portraying those opposed as "homophobes" and gay haters. It doesn't help when you get passionate Christians making stupid comments like "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" and preaching to people about homosexuality.

Give me a break. Attack ads? And Martin is imposing it on the country by not allowing free votes or a referendum.

Oh the arrogance of Canadians who have never had to fight for anything under the protective umbrella of the USA. How easy it is for self-righteous Canadians to lecture Americans how to fight a war. No surprise from those who are more worried about naked terrorists than decapitated humanitarians. Why no accountability for those on the other side who violate international war rules? Is it because your elitist ideology sees them as lower and gives them a pass? Seriously. Perhaps you would like to see them fight as the Canadian cops would on "To Serve and Protect", courteously requesting, in proper english, knife wielding suspects to kindly surender their weapons. Incredibly the countries the lead the charge against the US's 'hegemony' are the same imperialist countries such as France, Germany and Russia. Nations which glorified such leaders as Stalin, Hitler and Napoleon. Funny how we never discuss how these nations have screwed up the world. We never discuss the carpet bombing in WW2 that killed millions. (Hey that's the one war Canada was in on. How bout that.) Instead we're concerned about precision weapons in Iraq.

My initial thought is that a Liberal Party of Canada enthusiast condemning politicians for getting donations from private business must have either a keen sense of humour or a numb sense of irony. -kimmy

I'm just curious exactly what kind of Conservatives these are that hate Bush so much? Are these the conservatives that voted him in again 2 months ago? Are these people who contributed to the market rise upon the announcement of Bush's re-election. I'm sure you'll find the odd RINO and David Orchard conservative who doesn't like Bush. But the most relevant poll of all showed conservatives support Bush.

BD I know you see Al Qaida as a "boogy man" but Dubya will spare no expense at defending the US. I guess that's what differentiates us visionaries on the right from the myopic left, we know that money spent on a good defence is money well spent . As it is with things like entirely public health care, we'd rather be alive and bankrupt, than dead waiting in line for cost free surgery or in economics, have 500 GM workers layed off in Flint now rather than the entire corporation go under 5 years later because it can't compete with Japan, or cut taxes to boost the economy, such it is with spending on defence. We'd rather spend money now so we still have a country 5 years from now. But I know how it is with the left. As spokesman Moore says "there is no terrorist threat, there is no terrorist threat".

That's the message I got from Roger and Me.