Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 It just shows what kind of people they want in the party. Humans? Maybe if your party had a few more people would vote for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Are you trying to normalize your own feelings? What's the matter, reality scaring you? Despite decades of pro-homosexual advocacy in the schools any kid who is openly gay is still subjected to taunting, teasing, and possibly violence. You can only go so far in cultural engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 So you believe that all hate crime legislation should be eliminated because there are laws against beating people up? If it is illegal to beat people up why do you need a special law that says beating people up because they're gay should get a harsher punishment? Why shouldn't you get just as strict a punishment ( not that Liberals believe in strict punishment, of course) for beating up a guy because he's fat? A girl was beaten to death in England recently because she was a goth. Why shouldn't goths get special laws to protect them? Maybe if we just had harsh laws against violence against PEOPLE that would suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 What was this homophobic comment? There are a lot of people on the Left who believe that if you tell an offhand gay joke you are EXACTLY the same as if you launch a campaign to have all gays tortured to death and spend your evening beating up gay men. They really don't make any distinction. One gay joke and you're a "homophobe" who shouldn't be allowed to hold public office, shouldn't be employed and aren't fit to be around decent folk. Probably you should be locked up in some kind of prison for those guilty of thought crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Has he changed? What evidence is there of that? Didn't the Liberals take in a number of separatists, claiming they had changed, and make them ministers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Didn't the Liberals take in a number of separatists, claiming they had changed, and make them ministers? Didn't the Conservatives take in a number of separatists, claiming they had changed, and make them ministers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Maybe if we just had harsh laws against violence against PEOPLE that would suffice? The laws have been set up on hate crimes because some people don't actually get their hands dirty. They incite hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Fixed it for you. There have been a lot of anti-abortion riots? Can you cite a few? I know a few loonies have killed over abortion but I'm aware of no "riots" which would be anything close to the kind of embassy burning violence we've seen in the Muslim world. Why does the far left insist on excusing Muslim violence? Why does the far left insist on excusing the virulent bigotry and hate espoused by everyday Muslims, to say nothing of their mosques and religious figures, towards women and - uhm, GAYS? You never see condemnation of that from the Left. Instead any time anyone accuses Muslims of anything they dig around for a Christian alternative. White Christian tells a gay joke = evil, horrible, hateful, homophobic, must be destroyed. Muslim advocates execution of gays = delightful ethnic rejoicing in the freedom to express his cultural beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 And while that may have some truth to it, it also has nothing to do with what Lukiwski said . He was being homophobic. He was drinking and clowning around. Big deal. Get over yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 And the Left wing has always had very little tolerance for personal freedoms - including freedom of speech - and that continues to this day. I think that makes your sort considerably more dangerous. And the right wing continues to believe that free speech means that you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 How does it differ from what we used to call "being considerate"? You're considerate towards individuals, not towards groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Didn't the Conservatives take in a number of separatists, claiming they had changed, and make them ministers? Even if so where has your point gone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 And the right wing continues to believe that free speech means that you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Seems to me the Right has always held people responsible for their actions while the Left tries to make excuses for what people do and blame society. That's why all the criminals vote Liberal, and why you and the NDP fight tooth and nail on behalf of rapists and murderers to keep those evil Tories from implementing stricter punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 The laws have been set up on hate crimes because some people don't actually get their hands dirty. They incite hate. Incitement is a crime. Not liking homosexuals is not. Saying you don't like homosexuals should not be either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Even if so where has your point gone? I was wondering what your point was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 I was wondering what your point was. That people change over the years. You seem to accept that easily enough when they're Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regulus de Leo Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 The most bigotry I've ever heard came out of the mouths of self-proclaimed liberals: racism, sexism, and so-called 'homophobia.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Incitement is a crime.Not liking homosexuals is not. Saying you don't like homosexuals should not be either. That is why the MP is not being charged with any crime. He didn't advocate violence: just a view of gays that comes to the surface at right wing drinking parties. And while the MP seems truly contrite, one wonders if his views have really changed. Actions speak louder than words in many cases and while the law protects Jews from hate crimes, it doesn't protect gays. Gays were also sent to the death camps. Some of the right wing here believe all hate crimes shouldn't be on the books. They say if there in no violence and no incitement, there is no crime. That is true of slander as well. Perhaps Harper should drop his lawsuit against the Liberal party for exercising their freedom of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 That people change over the years. You seem to accept that easily enough when they're Liberals. Did I now? I asked what evidence there was of change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) Did I now? I asked what evidence there was of change. What evidence is there that a separatist changes except what he says now? A man campaigns, writes, gives speeches and advocates separatism with all his soul for years and years - and now he says he's changed his mind, and that's enough? What evidence is there that Lukowski is or ever was a bigot? As opposed to spewing some silly things while at a private party and drinking and trying to be funny? Edited April 5, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 That is why the MP is not being charged with any crime. He didn't advocate violence: just a view of gays that comes to the surface at right wing drinking parties. And that people laugh at. You seem to forget that part. Some of the right wing here believe all hate crimes shouldn't be on the books. They say if there in no violence and no incitement, there is no crime. That is true of slander as well. Perhaps Harper should drop his lawsuit against the Liberal party for exercising their freedom of speech. There is and always has been a difference between speaking insults and making statements of fact calculated to cause damages. If the Liberals had simply called Harper a moron, or said he was disgusting and evil there'd be no lawsuit. Hate crimes, by their nature, are far too dangerous because they can be interpreted just about any way the authorities choose to interpret them. The Nazis were subjected to hate crimes. It didn't stop them, and once in office they gleefully used those same laws against their opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontyBurns Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Despite decades of pro-homosexual advocacy in the schools any kid who is openly gay is still subjected to taunting, teasing, and possibly violence. You can only go so far in cultural engineering. I guess the gay-agenda isn't working out like they hoped. People are stlll normal after all the cultural engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 What evidence is there that a separatist changes except what he says now? And what they do now. I think that present Governor General had been accused of being associated with separatists. However, her actions as Governor-General have quelled that debate A man campaigns, writes, gives speeches and advocates separatism with all his soul for years and years - and now he says he's changed his mind, and that's enough? And what they do. It is why I don't think Tommy Douglas is a great Canadian. He may well have changed his mind and did remove eugenics from Saskatchewan in 1944 but he never stood up and say he was wrong and push for changes across Canada when he was in a position to do so. What evidence is there that Lukowski is or ever was a bigot? As opposed to spewing some silly things while at a private party and drinking and trying to be funny? I didn't say I had evidence he was a bigot. I said I have seen no evidence of him being open minded and tolerant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 I guess the gay-agenda isn't working out like they hoped. People are stlll normal after all the cultural engineering. The "gay agenda" promotes the equal treatment of gays -- not "converting" people (how could a group possibly force you into changing what you find attractive?) If you are so afraid that you could be easily "converted" by a gay, perhaps you're attracted by someone of the same gender, and that scares you? One cannot "convert" you to homosexuality in the same way one cannot "convert" you to a different race. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices -- some people are simply attracted to their same gender, some are not. And your problem with this is what again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DangerMouse Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 And what they do now. I think that present Governor General had been accused of being associated with separatists. However, her actions as Governor-General have quelled that debateAnd what they do. It is why I don't think Tommy Douglas is a great Canadian. He may well have changed his mind and did remove eugenics from Saskatchewan in 1944 but he never stood up and say he was wrong and push for changes across Canada when he was in a position to do so. I didn't say I had evidence he was a bigot. I said I have seen no evidence of him being open minded and tolerant. He stated in his apology "insensitive, intolerant and stupid!" He forgot to say "drunken bigot!" Somebody a few messages back used the term "cultural engineering." I've never heard that term before but isn't it interesting how that same cultural engineering through the mass media has created a culture of genuine hatred towards aborignal people as well? What the MP said in 1991, is just a "scratch on the surface" of what really is said and done out there. These bigots are in power--I said it before and III say it again--"they're all worse then kids." And that's pretty pathetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.