takeanumber

Alright, first thing first: When Takeanumber is away, the Argusaurus will play: Tsk Tsk. The Argusaur is right about the breakdown of marriage. What I do understand though is why the Argusaur will complain that not enough people are getting married, and instead doing the common law thing, which weakens the institution of families... and then he turns around and says homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. The reason why he's against extending marriage to homosexuals is because he hates homosexuals. It's as simple as that. He might not come out and say it, but the fact is, he can't come up with a single legit reason why letting Marc and Jerry get married, and adopt a kid (instead of maybe getting a family friend to pop 2 out for them) is such a bad thing. So, I'm forced to conclude that the opposition to the strengthening of marriage by inclusion of homosexual couples is predicated on good old fashion hatred. It's the lowest common denominator. When Cons imply "what's next, multiple marriages, marriage to dogs?", it's very demeaning to homosexuals, because they're likening homosexuals to polygamists and to animals. It's very dehumanizing. But yet, that's what people who hate homosexuals do. And sure, they'll feign and say "every time we say something bad about homosexuals or something good about marriage, we're called haters" Which, as I've read, is what segregationists used to say: "We don't hate black people, we just believe in the traditional definition of marriage between a white man and white woman or a black man and black woman. Why is it that whenever we want to talk about marriage, we're accused of being bigots?" And it's the same way with homosexuals. Cons will often use marriage as an extention of their general assault against homosexuals. And guess what? The general level of education has been raised in Canada so that the ignorance and stupidity that Conservative breeds upon is no longer ripe. The old Cons will eventually lose this war. A strong majority under 30 support same sex marriage. We just have to wait for the Argusaur to get consigned to the wrong side of history, along with the segregationists. If you have anything intelligent to reply to this post, write Paul Duffy. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you.

Wow, the Argusaur roars. It's 'secret' because not many people outside the Calgary Conservative Elite knows about it. How do I know about it? Ta-Da! Seriously Argusaur. As for me having a Nazi Fetish, don't get me confused for you and your friends. Also, you're in no position to critisize the Nazi's for their support of racial purity. (Swish!) The Nazi's were pro-gay when it came to other nationalities, but when it came to their own, it was completely different. (Hence the 1933 laws) which were at the time, also predicated on Christian zeolotism. (Strange how that always gets omitted.) Anyway, that's merely adding colour to the debate. (Drumroll). Osama Bin Ladin was working hand and hand with the CIA back during the Afghan-Soviet war (Frontline, PBS). We all know this. It's just a fact. When the Soviet empire somewhat crumbled (the Empire lives on in the form of the Russian Federation), they needed a new enemy. Lo and behold, the USA. The USA does have the attitude that a 'an enemy of an enemy is a friend'...I can list a dozen examples where the USA allied with genocidal, totalitarian or authoritarian regimes just to spite a greater enemy. Should I list them? Ah what the hell, let's start: 1. Taiwan. (Chiang Kai Sek and the KMT) 2. South Korea. (1955-1990 featured a regime similar to the KMT) 3. Uganda 4. UNITA (Angola) 5. Mobutu (Zaire) 6. Suharto (Indonesia) 7. South Vietnam 8. Mao (PRC, 1972) 9. Iraq (Saddam Hussein) 10. Egypt (ongoing) 11. Saudi Arabia (ongoing) 12. Kuwait (ongoing) 13. Pakistan (ongoing) 14. Jordan (ongoing) 15. Uzbekistan (ongoing) Regards, Takeanumber.

And you're wrong. And worse, you can't prove that women can't impart masculine lessons. (And the your point about understanding was defeated.) Now, let's talk about the Christian thing: You don't don't have to be a Christian to have Christian thoughts.

Who doesn't?

Weak reply.

I refuse to let 17 men in a plane change my life, or my world. I refuse to let 17 men in a plane take away my Charter rights. I refuse to let 17 men in a plane justify the torturing/humiliation of another human being. If you want to let those 17 men take away your Charter rights, then sign up for that kind of treatment. That's your choice. But not me. Not in my Canada. I choose freedom.

Frequenting an ally behind a gay bar night after night waiting for homosexuals to bash is in a different league than a mugger. The intent is to terrorize a community. (Impart a feeling of terror.) Therefore, it's a terrorist act. Don't try to make the act of gay bashing any less than what it really is, although that is the good Christian thing to do. Right on!

Weak. I demonstrated the counter-example, fair and square. 90% of the way there, but no, not on that list. It isn't relevant to the debate. I may have been raised by my great grand parents for all you know, and I'm sure you'd find a way to trash the way I was raised. Families come in all different sizes and shapes. To impose a Christian hierarchy on which ones are superior and which ones suck is well, Christian. By implying that women can't impart masculine lessons to a child is just a symptom of believing in that hierarchy. Pure and simple.

That too.

Exactly. So, with Harper, we could expect the same kind of toady-ing that we see from the likes of Blair? I'm proud of Canada's decision not to go to Iraq and chuck feeces on prisoners, thank you. Harper, and the Cons support for the War during the buidup illustrate their flawed judgement with respect to foreign policy.

Realy ---> -1pt, Spelling. give --> -1pt, not capitalized. statement, logic --> -3pts, a statement is 'proof', not 'logic'. you cling to that so furiously so provide the proof. --> -1pt, Awk. nto --> -1 pt. tell me? where is it? -> -2pt, fragment, capitals. the -> -1pt, spelling. (they) canadians -> -2pts, capitals. (x2) jsut - > -1 sp. weather -> -2 sp. (whether) Total -15pts. 5/20. F

Some Christian Fundamentalists have a lot in common with Islamic Fundamentalists, mainly, their desire to impose strict rules on society based on their respective words of God. You ask either group for their justification for a given policy that they support, and they'll reply, "because it's the word of God." And both factions have a few radical, violent people in them. Only the word 'terrorist' is reserved for Muslims. Christians who commit acts of terror (the killing of abortion doctors, the bashing of gays), are called something else. (Or never linked.) As for Harper being linked with Nazi'sm, I think that his stance has an uncanny resemblance to the Anti-Gay laws in 1932-1933. (Do some research.). I call it like I see it.

Might want to look at yourself in the mirror before you lecture people about 'ranting' or 'logic'. You know, they're not 'tactics' when it's true. These are policies that most Canadians will find 'scary' when they learn of them. You know, making noise about the Notwithstanding clause is 'scary'. You know, the unknown is 'scary'. And the massive hole in the Conservative party where 'policy' is supposed to be...that's scary. Because Canadians arn't convinced/don't know whether or not the Conservatives have truly moderated. And from my neck of the woods, Rob Anders is running, Diane Ablonzy, Jason KENNY, all running, so to me, the Conservatives are still the same Anti-immigrant, Pro-Aparteid, Anti-Gay, Anti-Choice, Anti-Public Healthcare PRO-BUSH party that they've always been. It's the same rot. It's the same stink. And it's an outrage that the Conservative party HASN'T moderated when this country NEEDS a viable alternative. Social Conservatives are getting greedy.

Mojo? Oh behaaaaaaaaaave.

Your arguement falls apart here. I don't believe that a man cannot fully understand or comprehend a woman's point of view, and vice versa. I believe maybe SOME men REFUSE to fully understand a woman's point of view. It's a question of ignorance, which of course, breeds Conservatism. But no, a woman can fully comprehend another man's pov, just as a man can. It's a question of ignorance versus education. Since there does exist at least one man who fully comprehends a woman's point of view, counterexample shown. Who is this man? David Rayside, U of Toronto. (and after you're done trying showing that that man doesn't fully understand a woman's point of view and if you pull it off, I have a list of about 25 men who do.) I commend you on your attempt Sully. It was a good one. Retreat for now and come at it from another angle that's easier to prove.

What of aboriginals? I know Klein is pretty good about aboriginals. But as for Harper et al. Just read one of Pankiw's or Thompsons speeches... or one of Flannagan's books... or what Harper himself has written on the subject. I'm sure it's enough to make most Canadians squirm.

THANKS!!!! I'd like to thank the following people: BigGunner: "We made it!!!" Argus: "Where would I be without you, man!" Sully: "Keep on trucking!" Alliance Fanatic: "Thanks for excerise man!" MapleSyrup: "If it wasn't for your poll numbers, I'd be lost. " Cons: "Keep running!" Don't cut me off yet! Don't start the MUSIC I'm NOT DONE Wooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

What about Aboriginal policy? It's amazing how silent Harper has been on that topic. I'd like to hear more on that topic. Would a Conservative government implement the Flannagan program against aboriginals? Do tell Mr. Harper. Do tell. Yes. It's all the media. Yes. Harper is a victim. I'll be sure to shed a tear for him.

Absolutely. Let's hope more true colours are shown. So far we only know the anti-gay and anti-women aspects. Now let's see the anti-aboriginal and a little bit more of the anti-billingualism sides, please. Oh yes, and I'd love to hear more about muslims and asians too, please. We deserve to know.

Actually, one of the Nazi claims while it was burning down homosexual resources centres in 1933 was that they were protecting religious freedom. (Source: "The Men with Pink Triangles", 1981.) Why don't you do some research? Argus = PWNED! Enjoy. Now, what's especially funny, is that whenever you talk about the CONS secret agenda, they always have the same response. A homosexual shows up to a rally? Beat him. A reporter asks a question about C-250? Boo them. And this is just how the Cons respond to any debate. Attack the questioner personally by calling them whacko's, or accusing them of bias, or invoking sacred rights. For instance: Well then! If you use that logic, we should be THANKFUL that the RCMP hauls aboriginals out to the outskirts of the city and leaves them to die, and then cover it up. Right? I should be thankful? Just because some of them do good work, doesn't mean they all get carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. You know, I cry myself to sleep every single night thinking about the few crooked, poor, corrupt RCMP officers that have to cover up for the really poor, crooked, corrupt RCMP officers. I just tear up. Thank God there are other morally corrupt white old men to defend them by invoking the "protection from criminals" clause. *sniff* If anything, we owe it to the GOOD RCMP officers and the FEW good CSIS officers to root out the corrupt bastards, instead of defending them whenever the media catches them killing people, or lining their own pockets with drug money.

Harper couldn't make it. He's too busy gagging his candidates. And yes, Harper has that much to hide.

It was your arguement. Prove that it's not true that a woman can't replace a man as a father. Go ahead. Prove it.

So Jack Layton is a Nazi now. You know, Harper's position on C-250 is extremely similar to the position taken by the Nazi's in 1932. You should be mindful of history. Ooops. Maybe Conservatives are. Wow. You mean now CSIS agents can drive aboriginals out in the middle of nowhere and let them freeze to death? How about go after journalists? Oh, no, wait! This will be great, because now the RCMP will be able to get away with it under the guise of National Security...which opens up muslims to the process. What a great country Conservatives have planned for us! Then, the Conservatives can use the secret police to get rid of all the Metis, instead of just grabing their status cards and denying that they exist. Sounds terrific. Gosh, with ideas like that, it's a wonder why the Alliance wasn't elected in 2000! Super! I guess those commercials really have a point.

If Canadian foreign policy is a whore the US, why then did Canada stay out of Iraq? And based on that point, why then did Harper want to go into Iraq? What does that make Stephen Harper?

right on Gunner!