Tory MP claims his fingernails are clean

scribblet · April 6, 2008

Holy SMokes! You're all babblin on like a bunch of kids!! One day the right wing element may snap out of the "lil-kid-immature mentality." Good Luck!

You think Jdobbin is right wing LOL

Edited April 6, 2008 by scriblett

Argus · April 6, 2008

Holy SMokes! You're all babblin on like a bunch of kids!! One day the right wing element may snap out of the "lil-kid-immature mentality." Good Luck!

So far all your posts remind me of a poodle which lives next door and yaps frantically away at everything that comes past the house.

capricorn · April 6, 2008

If what you say is true, why can the Tories use Dion's image on their website and ads? Why can they use his recordings both visual and audio? Is that forbidden in Saskatchewan as well? Do you have any Tory lawyers willing to give their opinion on this?

The images of Dion are widely available in the public domain. They are not private pictures. In this case there is no invasion of privacy. Anyone can reproduce them.

The Lukiwski video was not intended for the public domain and was not available publicly until the Sask. NDP released it without permission. That is the difference.

For example, if you forgot a damning video in a desk drawer at work and someone takes it without your permission, and makes it public without your permission, that is an invasion of your privacy.

BubberMiley · April 6, 2008

That's a compelling arguemnt: that his privacy is being invaded by showing his constituents the extent of his bigotry. I guess any way you can claim to be a victim is good enough. :lol:

Argus · April 6, 2008

That's a compelling arguemnt: that his privacy is being invaded by showing his constituents the extent of his bigotry. I guess any way you can claim to be a victim is good enough.

You honestly think his constituents are going to care about that video? He'll get re-elected easily. No, that video wasn't meant for his constituents, it was meant for the media, to cast aspersions on the Tory party. It was meant for Toronto and Vancouver, to help the NDP raise funds from the gay community. It was a finger pointed at the Tories saying "Look! Look! They're nasty! They're evil! They hate minorities! We're pure! Vote for us!"

It was a message meant for dumb people - i.e., people who can be convinced to vote for the NDP.

jdobbin · April 6, 2008

The images of Dion are widely available in the public domain. They are not private pictures. In this case there is no invasion of privacy. Anyone can reproduce them.
The Lukiwski video was not intended for the public domain and was not available publicly until the Sask. NDP released it without permission. That is the difference.

For example, if you forgot a damning video in a desk drawer at work and someone takes it without your permission, and makes it public without your permission, that is an invasion of your privacy.

Of course this seems to be your own personal opinion. I have not heard one person in a legal sense say what the NDP did was an invasion of privacy. It probably falls under aspects of "fair use" like using footage from the Liberal leadership convention.

Whereas, if the Tories tried to market a video of the convention, they would be violating the law. They can use excerpts for fair use without permission of the rights holders.

And so it goes with the Tory video. The NDP can't market the video but can release excerpts under fair use doctrine.

If a lawyer has a different opinion, I'm all ears but I am not hearing this argument on privacy being made by anyone.

capricorn · April 6, 2008

That's a compelling arguemnt: that his privacy is being invaded by showing his constituents the extent of his bigotry. I guess any way you can claim to be a victim is good enough.

Looking at a situation from a legal viewpoint is clearly over you head.

Just continue posting your mantra that most Conservatives are bigots and gay-bashers. The message is wearing thin and rather boring. The mature posters here compensate.

capricorn · April 6, 2008

The NDP can't market the video but can release excerpts under fair use doctrine.

The entire video was released, not just excerpts.

If a lawyer has a different opinion, I'm all ears but I am not hearing this argument on privacy being made by anyone.

Yes, it would be nice to hear from a lawyer on this. I brought this up because I thought it was a fair question which is separate and apart from the actual comments made on the video.

jdobbin · April 6, 2008

The entire video was released, not just excerpts.

Then it probably falls under "Fair dealing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#...aling_in_Canada

If it is used for criticism or news, it probably allows it to be released as is.

Yes, it would be nice to hear from a lawyer on this. I brought this up because I thought it was a fair question which is separate and apart from the actual comments made on the video.

The NDP released this to the media. The constitutional freedoms of the press are very likely protected in releasing the video. The NDP was under no obligation to return the video to those that made it. Nor were they responsible for recording the video or trying to distribute it as their own.

Edited April 6, 2008 by jdobbin

Oleg Bach · April 6, 2008

Then it probably falls under "Fair dealing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#...aling_in_Canada

If it is used for criticism or news, it probably allows to be released as is.

The NDP released this to the media. The constitutional freedoms of the press are very likely protected in releasing the video. The NDP was under no obligation to return the video to those that made it. Nor were they responsible for recording the video or trying to distribute as their own.

I guess if the angelic gayish guys get an itch bum and scratch...there may certainly be so dirt under the well manicured nails of our sacred and privledged gay community....really - so god damn what...I suppose that if my great grandfather uttered an anti-semetic remark in gest..that I would be punished for it? Why do we have to protect the gays as if they were all a bunch of sodimist saints? They are a very disloyal and selfish group in our society. BUT - In a nation where dogs are gaining human rights and humans are loosing theirs....it seems that the breeding population is held in contempt while those that embrace the gays and the dogs as if they are children - are slowly taking over -

tell me frankly that a penis in a bowel is superiour in purpose as a penis in a vagina...seems that old fashioned things like manhood and family are frowned apoun....the other night as I was walking the dogs - which are agressive with other dogs...a liberal professor...got upset with me because I explained the growling behaviour of my mutts towards his humanly dressed Poodle...as "They are dogs" - He replied "So that sums it up does it...it does NOT!" - then I said that the dogs were not human...he disagreed and if he could would have had me executed for calling a dog a dog....welcome to the brave new world of dirty finger nails and paws that fools wash and dry with white cotton towels. This it the world where dogs are loved - children are dispised - noble and honourable men are attacked..a world where some non-man or non-woman....now is the norm....I fear that I have less rights than a dog or a gay at this point...and if some politically correct creep would have me imprisioned for uttering the word *ag....damn them all....hetros are superiour! We generate life - what do they generate?

Drea · April 6, 2008

I guess if the angelic gayish guys get an itch bum and scratch...there may certainly be so dirt under the well manicured nails of our sacred and privledged gay community....really - so god damn what...I suppose that if my great grandfather uttered an anti-semetic remark in gest..that I would be punished for it? Why do we have to protect the gays as if they were all a bunch of sodimist saints? They are a very disloyal and selfish group in our society. BUT - In a nation where dogs are gaining human rights and humans are loosing theirs....it seems that the breeding population is held in contempt while those that embrace the gays and the dogs as if they are children - are slowly taking over -
tell me frankly that a penis in a bowel is superiour in purpose as a penis in a vagina...seems that old fashioned things like manhood and family are frowned apoun....the other night as I was walking the dogs - which are agressive with other dogs...a liberal professor...got upset with me because I explained the growling behaviour of my mutts towards his humanly dressed Poodle...as "They are dogs" - He replied "So that sums it up does it...it does NOT!" - then I said that the dogs were not human...he disagreed and if he could would have had me executed for calling a dog a dog....welcome to the brave new world of dirty finger nails and paws that fools wash and dry with white cotton towels. This it the world where dogs are loved - children are dispised - noble and honourable men are attacked..a world where some non-man or non-woman....now is the norm....I fear that I have less rights than a dog or a gay at this point...and if some politically correct creep would have me imprisioned for uttering the word *ag....damn them all....hetros are superiour! We generate life - what do they generate?

You really need to call the Dog Whisperer... you are using your agressive dogs as penis replacements and that's really not fair to the dogs. They don't want to be agressive - you've made them that way because of your own insecurities. Way to go :rolleyes:

Who cares that gays don't generate life? Shall it be "open season" on all the heteros who have never had any children? After all, according to you, they are useless unless they procreate....

"Hey you babyless s.o.b! Me n' my buds gonna beat you senseless 'cause you aint got no kids and that makes yer penis usless so I gonna cut it off you."

Does that sound about right? Does that sound like something you would like to say to childless people?

No wonder I rarely read what you post...

edited to add: It takes a really "big" man to walk a poodle... "little" men own aggressive dogs as "extensions" of themselves :lol: --- relax Oleg -- it was probably his wife's dog anyway and you are all in a tither over nothing.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Drea

MontyBurns · April 6, 2008

You really need to call the Dog Whisperer... you are using your agressive dogs as penis replacements and that's really not fair to the dogs. They don't want to be agressive - you've made them that way because of your own insecurities. Way to go
Who cares that gays don't generate life? Shall it be "open season" on all the heteros who have never had any children? After all, according to you, they are useless unless they procreate....

"Hey you babyless s.o.b! Me n' my buds gonna beat you senseless 'cause you aint got no kids and that makes yer penis usless so I gonna cut it off you."

Does that sound about right? Does that sound like something you would like to say to childless people?

No wonder I rarely read what you post...

edited to add: It takes a really "big" man to walk a poodle... "little" men own aggressive dogs as "extensions" of themselves --- relax Oleg -- it was probably his wife's dog anyway and you are all in a tither over nothing.

People like you are going to be the end of western civilization. Are you trying to be abnormal or what? I think you would defend anything except what you know is truly right.

MontyBurns · April 6, 2008

We generate life - what do they generate?

AIDS epidemics and shows like the CBCs Stephen and Chris

Shakeyhands · April 6, 2008

tell me frankly that a penis in a bowel is superiour in purpose as a penis in a vagina...

Why is it that you hero heterosexuals always seem to focus in on the sexual aspect of homosexuals?

Drea · April 6, 2008

People like you are going to be the end of western civilization.

Please explain how I am going to end the world! I am so eager to find out how I can have so much power -- its makin' me giddy!

... and makin' you froth at the mouth -- and I am having fun now -- let's continue m'kay! :lol:

Are you trying to be abnormal or what? I think you would defend anything except what you know is truly right.

Nope, those who are abnormal are those who would see others harmed for no reason.

Soon, like in 5 years or so, there will be no more children as all people will become gay -- gayness is like the flu -- you get it from touching something someone gay has touched or breathing their expelled air.

The only solution is for those who don't want to become gay is to get into the basement and duct tape the doors and windows -- 'tis the only way you will be safe from the "gay virus".

Your fear makes me laugh. Sorry. :lol:

BubberMiley · April 6, 2008

AIDS epidemics and shows like the CBCs Stephen and Chris

I enjoy how, on one hand, conservative supporters try to deny they are opposed to homosexuals, and yet you would never hear one of them on this board criticize the hatred that their fellow CPCers express.

Oleg Bach · April 6, 2008

AIDS epidemics and shows like the CBCs Stephen and Chris

There are those that are created sexless with no real need to breed..and there are those that make the "choice" - because they do not want the responsiblity of honourable manhood and family and the enduring relationship that is a lot of work called WOMAN. Yes - those born in a state of asexuality should not be condemened or persecuted - it's the sodomist jerks that are straight that bother me and use the gay lobby to further their own selfish power seeking charaters. I was in the entertainment buisness for a long time and I discovered a lot about so-called gays...some are and some are not...it is the NOT group that I have issue with that use political correctness to oppress and depress the standard hetro population. Having said that I will get scriptural..and excuse the spelling...to para phrase..."There are some eunuchs that are created by nature (God) and there are some created by human systems - those that have no need for woman or men for that matter are by designed meant to serve humanity and a higher more enlighted force (God) - constructs by social engineers that they call gay and insist that they are sexual is high fraud.

As far as tje AIDs factor - the so-called gay lobby jumped for joy when the virus jumped from the gay populace to the straight one - this cross over was caused by men that sleep with men for power reasons THEN - have sex with woman - it was these crazy bastards that caused the spread of this dreaded disease into the hetro world..we are talking about CHOICE here. I know for a fact that there are men that say they are gay and seek the now social benefits of the "life style" - who - secretly can and do sleep with woman..BUT will never admit it because they like the power of the GAY lobby...and they reward themselves though that power - so to knock down a politician for using out of date terminology is unfair.

..BUT - there are creeps who will further their own interests in the political assasination of an innocent man who was showing of while drunk and sadly his comedy routine did not work out in the long run....this attack agaInst straight society is engineered...and those that push this agenda along are not gay - they are clever pricks that use all means to destablize society - they hate real men and woman - and the enforcers of political correctness hate gays also - I do not...but I do not approve of political opportunism under the guise of protectionism - the creeps that support gay rights really don't like anyone - they are but clever users. IF the conservatives are damaged by this 16 year old utterance it is because they like the liberals are responsible for enforcing freedoms that enslave..to hell with the left and the right...

Drea · April 6, 2008

Here's my take on the future of homosexuality:

In the past, homosexuals have had to deny their sexuality and as a result many of them married and had children thus passing on the homosexual gene.

Today, homosexuals are not forced to have children -- and the rightwingers will love this part -- in a few generations, with no homosexuals masquerading a heteros and breeding, the homosexual gene will just die out.

So the rightwingers should be encouraging gays to come out, not to masqerade, but to be themselves in homosexual relationships and stop the homosexual gene from reproducing.

By forcing gays into hetero relationships, the rightwing has inadvertently made the gay gene continue.

MontyBurns · April 6, 2008

Here's my take on the future of homosexuality:
In the past, homosexuals have had to deny their sexuality and as a result many of them married and had children thus passing on the homosexual gene.

Today, homosexuals are not forced to have children -- and the rightwingers will love this part -- in a few generations, with no homosexuals masquerading a heteros and breeding, the homosexual gene will just die out.

So the rightwingers should be encouraging gays to come out, not to masqerade, but to be themselves in homosexual relationships and stop the homosexual gene from reproducing.

By forcing gays into hetero relationships, the rightwing has inadvertently made the gay gene continue.

I don't believe the gay gene theory.

Edited April 6, 2008 by MontyBurns

Oleg Bach · April 6, 2008

Here's my take on the future of homosexuality:
In the past, homosexuals have had to deny their sexuality and as a result many of them married and had children thus passing on the homosexual gene.

Today, homosexuals are not forced to have children -- and the rightwingers will love this part -- in a few generations, with no homosexuals masquerading a heteros and breeding, the homosexual gene will just die out.

So the rightwingers should be encouraging gays to come out, not to masqerade, but to be themselves in homosexual relationships and stop the homosexual gene from reproducing.

By forcing gays into hetero relationships, the rightwing has inadvertently made the gay gene continue.

This so-called gay gene is mentioned in the bible - originally they were a type of human demi-angel...there is a passage where there is a group of angels who were extremely beautiful and they were held up in a house in Gamora..the local debauched sodomites insisted that the home owner not shelter the beautuful ones and send them out side so they could "know them" - meaning they wanted to sodomize them. With lesbians and gays there is a deep selfish need to possess anything of beauty - for instance my wifes cousin is an aging lesbian of 45 years old and she has taken an 18 year old girl as a partner...there is no love their - just usery.

There is no gay gene. No matter how masculine a woman is she is female - no matter home femine a man is he is a male...I have asked a few gay men - IF - I was to drop you off on a desert island with a beautiful woman for two years - would when I retured - would there be a child? - all said yes...gayness is taught and instructed. Femine men use to marry and were happy in the more sophisticated by gone era. No boy or young girl is going to come up with the idea of putting a penis in their mouth unless the idea is suggested..humans just don't think of such things naturally...most lesbians are straight and are just the ones that are by passed by breeding males because most men don't have the balls to make love to a homely woman..Frankly...there will be an increase in gayness due to the instruction of it in primary schools..if a young male but so much as gets an irrection in the proximity of a male...off the send the poor kid to gay school for indoctriation - mean while he has not even had his first experience with a female...the promotion of gayness is actually child abuse and sexual interference...We should stop promoting it...and PLUS there are lunitical Trotskyites who actually encouage homosexuality thinking it is some sort of population control and they take it upon themselves to save the world from an over abundance of humanity - they are nuts!

MontyBurns · April 6, 2008

Soon, like in 5 years or so, there will be no more children as all people will become gay -- gayness is like the flu -- you get it from touching something someone gay has touched or breathing their expelled air.
The only solution is for those who don't want to become gay is to get into the basement and duct tape the doors and windows -- 'tis the only way you will be safe from the "gay virus".

Perhaps a better way would be to bring in a law requiring homosexuals to wear blue hats (like in the movie Borat). That way they are easily identifiable and can be avoided.

Drea · April 6, 2008

I don't believe the gay gene theory.

Do you believe that you are

A. inherently attracted to women

or

B. do you believe you make a conscious choice to be attracted to women?

I believe I am inherently attracted to men -- that my heterosexualness is built-in.

Isn't yours?

If yours is built-in (which I think you do believe), then why would you think that the same would not be true of homosexuals -- that they are inherently attracted to those of their own gender.

edited to add for Oleg -- if a man were stranded on a desert island with a sheep... well you get the drift. Moot point.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Drea

MontyBurns · April 6, 2008

Do you believe that you are
A. inherently attracted to women

or

B. do you believe you make a conscious choice to be attracted to women?

I believe I am inherently attracted to men -- that my heterosexualness is built-in.

Isn't yours?

If yours is built-in (which I think you do believe), then why would you think that the same would not be true of homosexuals -- that they are inherently attracted to those of their own gender.

I have seen too many cases where it seems to be learned. Like abuse, social rejecxtion and so on.

scribblet · April 6, 2008

Looking at a situation from a legal viewpoint is clearly over you head.
Just continue posting your mantra that most Conservatives are bigots and gay-bashers. The message is wearing thin and rather boring. The mature posters here compensate.

He has to, you know how it is, tell people something often enough and they will believe it. 'Lenin's useful idiots'... they have nothing else to go on so they resort to unethical practices.

This event occurred 16 years ago in a non-CPC, non-Canadian Alliance, non-Reform context which seems to be overlooked here, deliberately of course.

Consistency should demand that the NDP append to such revelations a footnote of apology for some pretty awful things uttered by Saint Tommy and other luminaries of the CCF/NDP faith.

And while on their witch hunt , the NDP et al might enlighten us and Parliament on some of the more interesting things Liberal MP, Tom Wappel has had to say. I'm sure there are more of that ilk hiding in the Liberal closet.

Drea · April 6, 2008

Then we need to look at the abuser as the villain, not the victim.

IMO, attractiveness (what you find attractive) is built-in... For example, it makes no matter that my first husband hit me, that event did not "turn me into" a homosexual.

I am still attracted to male human beings.

For a man, da' penis must rise -- so if seeing an attractive man makes your penis rise, then you are homosexual. If seeing an attractive woman makes your penis rise then you are heterosexual.

Of course, those who deny or fear their homosexuality (not you though Monty!) would get that rise when they least want it. :lol: