marksman

The only thing worth noting about your post is that you completely avoided any response that would back up your point of view. As others have pointed out you're so far incapable of showing how homosexuality is evil. That puts you on par with the crazy drunks you sometimes hear yelling from street corners. You can upgrade your status by trying to post something other than nazi comments or your opinions that you try to disguise as facts. Prove domestic violence is more prevalent in homosexual relationships. I'm not expecting an actual answer from you given your posts in this topic.

Actually they'd agree with your views on homosexuality not with mine. Others have pointed out it's more than just your use of the word sin. But even if it was only the use of that word then it's a religious viewpoint. Sin is a religious concept. Step 1: Show that homosexuality is harmful and destructive. Let me know when you pass that step. Until then you're assuming its harmful and destructive without any reason which is intolerant. Your argument is irrelevant until you deal with step 1. But Canada isn't a failed experiment when it persecutes anyone other than Christians?

You're intolerant for viewing a legitimate lifestyle as evil and a sin. You've offered no reason why homosexuality should be considered evil by society other than a religious viewpoint only held by some members of that society. Some people's religion tells them that interracial marriage is evil and a sin. They don't become tolerant just because they use the words evil and sin. If we did things your way someone could call Christians evil and pass laws that prohibited Christian churches and it would have to be acceptable to you because they're opposing evil. There's nothing wrong with opposing evil right?

You do like your strawman arguments and arguing against things that noone else said. Noone said you're on drugs or that people are forced to read your nonsense. Only that what you post is nonsense. Like thinking that hitting the add reply button more times than someone else makes a difference to anything.

Oh look another made up myth that you can then argue against to make yourself feel better. I suppose trolling on the internet is cheaper than a drug habit.

Only a complete idiot would think that taking an interest in world events means that you don't take interest in domestic events or that you consider domestic events meaningless.

You mean like the evil and sin of judging others? Looks like you don't have as much problem with sin as you claim. So not being a hypocrite is evil and sinful? Evil and sin work through intolerance and seeing others as inferior which is what you're doing with homosexuals. And yet you engage in sins that the Bible says is wrong. You're judging others and probably wearing clothes of mixed fibers. All that pesky evidence that shows sexual orientation is not a choice doesn't count then according to you. And don't be stupid you're condemning homosexuals. All of your posts talking about their evil and sin is condemning them. Watching people like you argue for intolerance and inequality isn't amusing at all. Watching your hypocrisy is slightly more amusing but only because it shows how weak all of your arguments are.

I'm sure you made your hand very happy. But you're right this has nothing to do with Canada. So why are you trying to make this about Canada? Trolling with quotes can be fun but next time quote the whole thing The comment is showing the exact opposite of peaked interest. Looks like since Bush and Cheney couldn't run again you've got to take your frustration out somewhere even if you've got to make up stuff to argue against.

Her response is amusing. She's calling these aides jerks because they apparently took her comments out of context. Meanwhile she spent most of her campaigning doing things like taking Obama's relationship with Ayers out of context. Not just out of context but creating a whole new context so that it would seem worse than it was.

If it was the norm then it wouldn't be considered deviant. Ancient Rome doesn't help this discussion. Reality seems to disagree with you. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1171196,00.html And just because a church is burnt doesn't necessarily mean hate crime http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...es/churches.htm Crimes aren't defined based on the religious views of some individuals. Otherwise if I believe assault happens when someone smiles at me I could go around charging lots of people with assaulting me. Even if you think making the world evil is a crime you'd have to prove that gay people living the same as hetero people actually makes the world evil. For crimes you've got to show that beyond a reasonable doubt so good luck with that. Don't make up facts. There is domestic violence within the gay community but that doesn't mean there's only a handful of incidents of violence against gays and definitely doesn't mean that violence is mostly done by other gays. In 2004 15.6% of all hate crimes with a single bias were because of sexual orientation. Of that number only 33 of the 1200 incidents were anti hetero. And that's just hate crimes. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_re...rime/index.html That statement is misinformed at best. It's like saying the college lifestyle is all about sex. No matter how many people want you to think that it's true it isn't. They're not talking about laws they're talking about equal rights. Rights shouldn't change based on mob rule otherwise they mean nothing.

Were you that kid in class that thought because the pretty girl/boy smiled at you they were in love with you? Many in Canada are happy that Obama was elected. And some might wish we had someone with his oratory skills here. But that's no different than the Americans who claimed to want to move to Canada after 2000 and 2004.

Time to remove the tinfoil. If noone looked into Obama what was going on for over a year while he was running for president? All the talk of you don't know Obama was pathetic especially because it was coming from someone that noone had ever heard of before. If they didn't know Obama after over a year then it's totally reasonable that Palin get investigated since she came out of nowhere only a few months before the election. To say there was no effort to look into his past is hiding from reality. Even Clinton raised the Ayers issue long before Palin showed up. Anyone who wants to run for VP and thinks they can hide from the media and never answer a question is fooling themselves. Palin tried and it wasn't unreasonable for the media to vet her. Someone had to since McCain didn't bother.

Palin could easily return. Has everyone already forgotten that it's McCain that lost the presidential election not Palin? I do hope you're kidding about comparing Palin to Edwards. If you think someone with over a decade of legal experience is less qualified than someone who can't name major continents then you're taking anti intellectualism to a new level. She couldn't even answer a question about what magazines she reads. I think with 2 years of coaching Palin will be back but to call Edwards unqualified because of a successful career is dumb.

4 years is a long time to prepare someone to sound like they know what's going on. Don't be surprised at all if Palin comes back. Although it's probably only 2 years before this whole things starts up again. For the Republicans anyway. But even 2 years is enough to teach basic geography and learn how to make it through a Katie Couric interview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter

My post wasn't meant to stifle debate. It's just that your post seemed very 1 sided to me. In a way it even implied that people with left political views aren't part of society. The thing is there're extremists from all ideologies and political groups and it seems all of these extremists end up spouting some hypocrisy. As Kitch pointed out hate speech from all corners can go without punishment or investigation. You can't assume this behaviour only comes from 1 side in any debate. The other thing is I don't think you can talk about that hypocrisy without looking at the underlying debate. The arguments for and against gay marriage have to be looked at to see if someone is actually being hypocritical. Most anti gay marriage people want to impose their will on others by stopping gay couples from marrying. Whereas most pro gay marriage people wouldn't be imposing their will on others in the same way. Religious groups opposing gay marriage would still be free to marry and not marry who they want. I also think that in this case there can be some leniency in how we see things. Gay couples in California finally had official recognition that equality applied to them as well and then a few months later they narrowly lost that recognition in a vote where you had all sorts of people coming from out of state and ads that were essentially lies. Frustration the day after that happens can be expected. It doesn't excuse those comments. But it also doesn't compare to people like that church group that wanted to come to Canada and protest the funeral of that kid who died on the greyhound bus because "God was punishing Canada for allowing gay marriage".

How fitting that you even think your delusions are superior to other types of delusions. There's no reason to think I've got an inferiority complex but keep on swinging. 1 day you'll get a hit. This may surprise you but just because the USA elected Obama that doesn't mean the rest of the world now needs to go out and find "their own Obama". His election was historic for the USA and for that reason Americans should be proud. But he's not a messiah and his politics wouldn't necessarily appeal in other countries to the same degree as they apparently appealed in the USA.

Oh good more nonsense from someone who's got nothing better to do than attempt to satisfy their superiority complex.

Your 1st post is just wrong. Gay doesn't equal left so you can't claim leftist hypocrisy on this. You're also mistaken about tolerance. The people making those comments aren't asking for tolerance they're asking for equal rights. At least that's what's in the comments you were refering to. It's not a case of someone saying I want tolerance for my views but won't be tolerant about your views. It's a case of someone saying I won't be tolerant about being treated unequally any more. The comments talking about burning churches and killing people are wrong. So were the comments about burning gay friendly places and killing gays when those comments were made.

You rest your case and you lose. You're welcome. Now let me tell you why. When you say energy costs that's not the same as crude oil costs. It's not even the same as gas costs or fuel costs. This is what you said It's a fact that Canada has low energy prices. As for your last post you haven't based anything on facts. Do we pay the same electricity prices or gas prices as the US? Is the US nationalized? What about the UK? So no fact there that supports your new argument that we all pay the same energy costs. Now you're talking fuel instead of energy. And all of this still goes to show how Canadians do not pay the same as people in other countries for their gas. You fail to understand that energy doesn't come in barrels. If you want to talk about crude oil costs then don't say energy costs. You also fail to understand that if you're talking about Canadian industries those industries don't buy barrels of crude oil. Even if they did buy crude oil directly businesses aren't less competitive only because of the price of a barrel of oil. You also fail to understand that just because a price is reported in US dollars across the world for consistency that doesn't mean the barrel is purchased in US dollars. This last line even contradicts everything you just said. If everyone pays the same for a barrel how can you then say that some countries pay more just because the price is in US dollars? I don't even know why you're trying to argue this. Your point was that energy costs need to come down so Canadian businesses can be globally competitive. This implies that we aren't paying the same prices as others so how can you now say it's all the same? Using your language if you want to debate something try to have a consistent position 1st. And know what you want to talk about instead of changing between energy and crude oil. And just because you say you've based your arguments on facts doesn't make it true.

Are you really so naive to believe that all companies are evil and only concerned with money? It's their primary concern otherwise they wouldn't be in business but that doesn't mean there aren't actual people in those companies that might feel they can use their positions to support causes they believe in. I'm sure they know most of their customers won't abandon them because of their support but that doesn't mean they're doing it just to make profit. Sometimes companies just do this stuff for the pr but sometimes that pr is a bonus and the primary goal was to give their support to a cause. Either way their motivation doesn't really matter. The 1st post was saying it's good to see companies taking positions on controversial issues. Why they do it doesn't matter since the point was only about the fact that they did do it.

What sort of doublespeak is that? I'm wrong that Canada has low energy costs because everyone pays the same except there's a difference in taxes and labour costs? How can everyone pay the same if there're differences? If you think people in Canada pay the same energy costs as people in Russia or Brazil or any other country in the world then you're mistaken.

The costs compared were the prices people and customers actually paid. So no need to go creating strawman arguments. What would make you jump to that conclusion anyway?

Energy costs in Canada have been 1 of the lowest in the world. If we aren't competitive because of energy costs then we're done for because everyone else seems to compete with higher costs.

How sad that people take this opportunity to insult other Canadians. You're happy that other provinces are having economic problems? What's wrong with you? I suggest you deal with your admitted inferiority complex in a different way. Most Ontarians don't take pleasure in seeing other parts of the country struggle and the few that do are fools just like those taking pleasure in Ontario's problems right now. Even now Ontario continues to pour billions of dollars into other parts of the country so why gloat when some of it needs to come back through equalization payments? The economic problems Ontario faces can be blamed on a number of factors including the provincial and federal governments. The Ontario Liberals should be doing more and so should the federal Conservatives. Anyone who thinks we've got a great PM or brilliant finance minister when these people are publicly insulting Ontario and telling businesses to invest somewhere else is completely deluded. Unless your definition of brilliant is making a problem worse.