Why the hate for harper?

[Alta4ever]

You are using it as a relation to extreme forms of fundamentalism like jihad.

The truth is fundamental Christianity is meerly the adherence to basic bible teachings, and stories. The way you use it anyone who attends church or beleives in the christian faith would fall under this term which is simply not true.

It is not a radical form of worship which is how you are using it. It does not condone murder or extremist acts which is what you, richard dawkins and many others are perverting the term to.

[capricorn]

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because he and the rest of his party are prejudiced towards homosexuals? Most of the time when you single out a group of people and promote policies that damage/devalue them they tend to not want to be your friend.

That's not quite accurate. The Conservative party has not promoted policies that damage/devalue homosexuals. For example, I have no knowledge of any Conservative policy that would target homosexuals insofar as jailing them or advocating they be institutionalized or any harm done to them. What the Conservatives have refused is to treat homosexuals as a group that requires special protection not afforded to the population in general or special consideration when it comes to funding the gay pride parade.

Christian fundamentalists like Harper, Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, etc , etc, are willing to suspend their common sense(if they ever had any) to "believe" that the bible is a literal historic record. Then to make things worse they are willing to ignore facts and science to try and force their retarded views on the rest of us who want no part of them.

Sheesh.

That is what a fundamentalist is Alta, I'm not accusing you or all people who vote CPC of being one, but if you vote for Harper knowing full well (or being willfully ignorant of the fact) that Harper wants to force his dementia on the country then you are complicit in the rights violations that will occur under his reign.

Er, that's not Alta, that's August1991, whatever. You obviously have a hate-on for Harper. What you fail to understand is that not all Conservative supporters are motivated by Harper's leadership. A political party is a sum of all of its parts, not just the leader.

[DrGreenthumb]

That doesn't make one a fundamentalist.

Come on lets see have it what makes them fundamentalists hmmm.

Define the term as you using it, what is it that makes them cross the line from regular Christian to fundamentalist Christian.

The difference is even though I am a Christian, I do not believe that all the animals on earth are here today only because Noah built a big frickin boat and loaded mating pairs of every animal that exists today onto it. I do not believe that the world is only 6000 years old and we are all descendants of 2 people that God poofed into existance, one from the rib of the other. Isn't incest sinful anyway? Wouldn't the direct family members have had to interbreed to populate the earth? EWWWW! I don't believe that all sin is the fault of woman for taking an apple from a talking snake who tricked her into disobeying God. That is NOT why women have periods and painful childbirth, that's idiotic nonsense.

Non fundamentalist Christians understand that the bible is a collection of stories and fables meant to teach us life lessons, and to love and respect each other, not some literal rule book. REAL Christians also understand the lessons that Jesus taught about forgiveness, and about not being so quick to punish those who make mistakes. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

If you can't see the difference between moderate Christians or Muslims and the Fundamentalist whackos like Harper and Bin Laden, I don't know how what to say to you.

[Alta4ever]

The difference is even though I am a Christian, I do not believe that all the animals on earth are here today only because Noah built a big frickin boat and loaded mating pairs of every animal that exists today onto it. I do not believe that the world is only 6000 years old and we are all descendants of 2 people that God poofed into existance, one from the rib of the other. Isn't incest sinful anyway? Wouldn't the direct family members have had to interbreed to populate the earth? EWWWW! I don't believe that all sin is the fault of woman for taking an apple from a talking snake who tricked her into disobeying God. That is NOT why women have periods and painful childbirth, that's idiotic nonsense.

Non fundamentalist Christians understand that the bible is a collection of stories and fables meant to teach us life lessons, and to love and respect each other, not some literal rule book. REAL Christians also understand the lessons that Jesus taught about forgiveness, and about not being so quick to punish those who make mistakes. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

If you can't see the difference between moderate Christians or Muslims and the Fundamentalist whackos like Harper and Bin Laden, I don't know how what to say to you.

You have described a sect of creationists, not fundamentalists.

What do you think of judism since Noah is first testament I believe, which is shared with christianity. Are you going to call them fundamentalists for their beliefs?

Here is what Christian Fundamentalism is, and it lists nothing of you have posted.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp

Relating Harper to Bin laden yep thats apt. Bin laden preaches death and destruction to those who do not share his religion. Another radical statement from you which means nothing.

Haven't seen Harper avocate death to the infidel

Edited May 21, 2010 by Alta4ever

[August1991]

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because he and the rest of his party are prejudiced towards homosexuals?

GreenThumb, you make my point.

Gays are a small but very vocal minority. They perceive Harper as prejudiced. So to return to the OP, "why the hate for Harper (in English Canada)?" A small, vocal minority really hates Harper.

-----

But gays who hate Harper - even if they dominate the CBC media - don't explain his poll results. I still say that Harper's electoral problem is women in general and Quebec.

Edited May 21, 2010 by August1991

[DrGreenthumb]

The Conservative party has not promoted policies that damage/devalue homosexuals. For example, I have no knowledge of any Conservative policy that would target homosexuals insofar as jailing them or advocating they be institutionalized or any harm done to them. What the Conservatives have refused is to treat homosexuals as a group that requires special protection not afforded to the population in general or special consideration when it comes to funding the gay pride parade.

They certainly have. They may not have introduced any bills to make homosexuality illegal, yet, but they certainly have devalued/damaged them by refusing to treat them as equal citizens of equal value, with equal rights. When a group of people is regularly targeted for perecution, (gaybashing), or denigrated in a way meant to make people think less of that group as a whole, (Dirt under the fingernails anyone?)then they need and deserve special protection from the bigots and religiously motivated A-holes that are targetting them. You can whine about funding for the pride parade when the government stops funding churches through tax credits and government hanndouts(youth for Christ?) All the CPC'ers voted to deny homosexual couples the same right to marry each other that other Canadians have, and when you deny a group of people a right that others have that is devalueing them.

Hey the idea of male gay sex grosses me out and I find it totally icky, but that gives me no right to dictate to other consenting adults how they make seek happiness in THEIR lives. They don't try to tell ME who I can have sex with or marry. Live and let live FFS.

Edited May 21, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[DrGreenthumb]

Here is what Christian Fundamentalism is, and it lists nothing of you have posted.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp

I don't need your web definition I can identify whacko fundies for myself. Catholic.com? Do THEY get to decide who is a whacko now? I think they should concentrate on getting their priests to stop diddling little boys, before they shoot their mouths off about anything.

[Alta4ever]

I don't need your web definition I can identify whacko fundies for myself.

Obviously you can't since you support the NDP the third party nut jobs of Canadian politics.

Who better to define a sect of Protestantism then those who are at odds with it.

Yet the encyclopedia supports the definition from the first cite.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045300878.html

[DrGreenthumb]

GreenThumb, you make my point.

Gays are a small but very vocal minority. They perceive Harper as prejudiced. So to return to the OP, "why the hate for Harper (in English Canada)?" A small, vocal minority really hates Harper.

-----

But gays who hate Harper - even if they dominate the CBC media - don't explain his poll results. I still say that Harper's electoral problem is women in general and Quebec.

What point would that be?

I agree that Harper has a problem with women, but I don't see why that is surprising either, like most bible literalists Harper sees women as having less value then men and women are starting to see this more and more. It used to blow my mind when I worked of a group of these religious nutters, how the women would serve the men dinner, then wait till they were done before they would eat, and then clean up after them. Shut the F*ck up women's groups? or your funding will be cut? surprise 24 women's groups defunded shortly after. Letting his whacko followers like ROd Brinooge continue to bring forward abortion legislation sure ain't going to endear women to Harper either. The have a right and a CHOICE now, and if Harper Conbots had a majority in the house and senate they will have this RIGHT stripped away. Oh yeah how many women made it onto that government excellence in science panel, oh that's right ZERO, ZILCH, NONE NADA.

Have I ever mentioned that they put a friggin moron creationist 6000 year old world nutjob in charge of who gets science funding? I can't believe that MORE people don't hate this bunch of tools, and it amazes me that people would rather be ruled over by a moron than an intellectual. They actually use Iggy's academic accomplishments to attack him with??? Like being a dipshit bible literalist better qualifies you to run a country than being exceptionally smart, geez.

[Alta4ever]

Have I ever mentioned that they put a friggin moron creationist 6000 year old world nutjob in charge of who gets science funding? I can't believe that MORE people don't hate this bunch of tools, and it amazes me that people would rather be ruled over by a moron than an intellectual. They actually use Iggy's academic accomplishments to attack him with??? Like being a dipshit bible literalist better qualifies you to run a country than being exceptionally smart, geez.

It seems to me that some of the great scientific discoveries were made by people of faith. But I imagine since those discoveries were made by people of faith in your mind they weren't exceptionally smart. Tell what are you thoughts on the intelligence level of Leonardo Da Vinci. Maybe we should talk about Newton, or shall we look at others in history.

The fact of the matter is you are looking for excuses to hate Harper and the CPC government because they don't support the legalization of pot.

[Alta4ever]

and it amazes me that people would rather be ruled over by a moron than an intellectual. They actually use Iggy's academic accomplishments to attack him with???

Ignatieff maybe learned, but that does not make a person smart, let alone exceptionally smart. Obviously he has not had the smarts/ability to practically apply that knowledge and use it to his advantage in Canadian Politics. Something his Harvard Alumni to the south in the oval office has been able to do.

[DrGreenthumb]

It seems to me that some of the great scientific discoveries were made by people of faith. But I imagine since those discoveries were made by people of faith in your mind they weren't exceptionally smart. Tell what are you thoughts on the intelligence level of Leonardo Da Vinci. Maybe we should talk about Newton, or shall we look at others in history.

I have nothing against men of faith, I am a man of faith. I have something against morons who accept bible stories as literal historic fact, and I don't have anything against them until they try and force their stupid views on people who don't want them DaVinci was a scientist primarily and an artist and is rumoured to have been illuminati. I certainly wouldn't categorize him as a moronic old testament literalist. I'll save that category for Stockwell .

Edited May 21, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Alta4ever]

I have nothing against men of faith, I am a man of faith. I have something against morons who accept bible stories as literal historic fact, and I don't have anything against them until they try and force their stupid views on people who don't want them DaVinci was a scientist primarily and an artist and is rumoured to have been illuminati. I certainly wouldn't categorize him as a moronic old testament literalist. I'll save that category for Stockwell .

The teachings were a lot more strict back then in Da Vinci's time then they are now. I bet Stockwell's beliefs are much more moderate then what would have been taught to da Vinci.

This is more you finding reasons to demonize because the current government has no will to legalize pot, pure and simple.

[DrGreenthumb]

The teachings were a lot more strict back then in Da Vinci's time then they are now. I bet Stockwell's beliefs are much more moderate then what would have been taught to da Vinci.

Well since Da Vinci's time most people have taken more enlightened views, that is except for the bible literalists who still believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old world, and the rapture. I don't believe that DaVinci was anywhere near as stupid and brainwashed as modern CPCers. The church used to hunt down and kill people who debunked their bunk. I actually think I read something about DaVinci being on their hitlist at one time.

[Alta4ever]

Well since Da Vinci's time most people have taken more enlightened views, that is except for the bible literalists who still believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old world, and the rapture. I don't believe that DaVinci was anywhere near as stupid and brainwashed as modern CPCers. The church used to hunt down and kill people who debunked their bunk. I actually think I read something about DaVinci being on their hitlist at one time.

So then by your definition of what it takes to be intelligent and contribute to both society and science, Da Vinci was not a genius. We should discount the work of Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Kelvin, or Faraday?

I wonder what you think of this quote by Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[DrGreenthumb]

So then by your definition of what it takes to be intelligent and contribute to both society and science, Da Vinci was not a genius. We should discount the work of Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Kelvin, or Faraday?

I wonder what you think of this quote by Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

D you even read my posts before commenting on them? I have stated that I AM a man of faith, its not Christianity that bothers me it is ignorants who can't accept scientific fact when it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the bible. I hold DaVinci in high esteem. THe men of science you refer to were almost all persecuted for their discoveries by religious nutters(see fundies) because they conflicted with church doctrine. I agree with Einstein.

I also like his quote " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" Quite relevant to the prohibition issue for me.

[Alta4ever]

D you even read my posts before commenting on them? I have stated that I AM a man of faith, its not Christianity that bothers me it is ignorants who can't accept scientific fact when it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the bible. I hold DaVinci in high esteem. THe men of science you refer to were almost all persecuted for their discoveries by religious nutters(see fundies) because they conflicted with church doctrine. I agree with Einstein.

I also like his quote " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" Quite relevant to the prohibition issue for me.

So you shouldn't have a problem with a person of faith holding office since faith isn't a measure of intelligence.

[Alta4ever]

My my even someone at the T Star disagrees with you on the religious right fear mongering, I am truly shocked that is a T star blog entry. (I'm still looking for a sun logo on this and rubbing my eyes)

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/05/stephen-harper-and-religion.html

[wyly]

Canadians don't love harper, but they are somewhat satisfied with the job he's doing, as he's better than the other horrible leadership options that have been out there for the past couple elections.

and how does anyone know how the other leadership options would perform?..you don't nor does anyone else, none of them have ever led a government...all the assessment on leadership is judged on public relations and smear campaigns, the public has no clue how any would perform...

by what twisted logic does a leader who has never held a real job and finds parliament an annoyance/inconvenience rate as more capable than someone who is a Harvard Prof? how is being too smart detrimental to being the PM?..

imagine the want add for a job as PM of a country...Now Hiring, no previous relevant employment experiences needed, the successful candidate must not be overly intelligent, have no respect for the office he holds and above all be a religious nutbar. Rational well educated people with actual work history will be rejected as too smart for the position and over qualified.

[Dave_ON]

That's not quite accurate. The Conservative party has not promoted policies that damage/devalue homosexuals. For example, I have no knowledge of any Conservative policy that would target homosexuals insofar as jailing them or advocating they be institutionalized or any harm done to them.

Agreed on this point

What the Conservatives have refused is to treat homosexuals as a group that requires special protection not afforded to the population in general or special consideration when it comes to funding the gay pride parade.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of special protection however the gay pride funding is a sticking point. Gay pride did not get special consideration, it got the very same consideration as all "niche" cultural events. Pride just so happens to be a rather well known one. His reniging on funding Montreal pride AFTER he received backlash from funding Toronto pride was nothing more than damage control among his more christian supporters. This was a mistake IMV as he was already on the down turn in Quebec over "cultural funding" and now he snubs Diversite which is a Gay Arts Festival. It's actually quite a different creature than the more politically oriented Toronto Pride.

Either way as I've mentioned numerous times, Toronto Pride did not receive special consideration, it received the same consideration of all other like events, such as the Calgary stampede, they Loyalist Day Parade and other even more obscure events. This simply added to the long list of reason why Gays dislike/distrust Mr. Harper. He's trying to appear as not being Anti-Gay but he sure as hell is making it known he's not pro-gay either. Unfortunately for him there isn't truly any neutral ground on this subject.

Sheesh.

In a word yes, I have a mental "ignore list", I skim certain posters content and if there's something relevant I'll post. If not, I stop reading and don't bother responding.

What you fail to understand is that not all Conservative supporters are motivated by Harper's leadership. A political party is a sum of all of its parts, not just the leader.

Agreed though I think we can't discount the impact a leader has on the polling numbers. Yes we vote for MP's but we're all well aware tha by convention the party with the most MP's there leader becomes the PM. This is sufficient to prevent people from voting for a given party.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Dave_ON

[Wild Bill]

D you even read my posts before commenting on them? I have stated that I AM a man of faith, its not Christianity that bothers me it is ignorants who can't accept scientific fact when it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the bible. I hold DaVinci in high esteem. THe men of science you refer to were almost all persecuted for their discoveries by religious nutters(see fundies) because they conflicted with church doctrine. I agree with Einstein.

I also like his quote " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" Quite relevant to the prohibition issue for me.

Dr. G., there was a good article in the Post yesterday. I'd reference more but the wife has already thrown the issue out. Anyhow, it was written by someone who had worked with Harper at the NCC for years. He found it amusing how so many folks keep insisting that Harper is some kind of "fundy" with religion. In all the years he worked beside him he saw absolutely no sign of it! In fact, he found him not very religious at all.

It seems to be simply kneejerk, ad hominem leftie propaganda. They don't like him so that's a scary label to hang on him. This jives with what I knew of the man in the Reform days.

Still, the writer stated that Harper is not above paying lip service to the religious right. He will advance some position or bill that appears to cater to them but it will either be rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things or expected to never pass in Parliament anyway! Apparently, the religious right is not that happy with Harper either. To them, he never really delivers what they want but they have no one else to support.

Boy, to someone like me does that sound familiar! I scanned the headlines this morning and it would appear that Harper is quietly advising his MPs to vote against an abortion bill. He's not whipping the vote but it's obvious he doesn't want it to pass. This is consistent with what I heard him tell the Reform Party years ago. He had said that if the party became to fixated on religion and social engineering concepts they would be doomed to repeatedly lose! So he's allowed an abortion Bill to arise as a bone to the fundies but he'll make sure it will never pass.

So he's not a "fundy" at all, Dr. G. You're just hanging an ad hominem label on the man. He is actually something quite different...a Machiavelli with a touch of Goebbels! He is a master of appearing to stand for something a political demographic wants without actually ever giving it to them! Fundamentalist religion is just one of the areas that he does such a tactic.

This was another of old Chretien's talents! He would make the Liberal Party appear to be all things to all people while never actually having any firm principles at all! What a difference from Manning, who had a firm list of principles that you could examine and decide if you agreed. If he couldn't get enough agreement to get you on board, Manning would try to further persuade you and could always fall back on the party platform of representing the people first and foremost. You were free to try to persuade sufficient numbers of other party members to your view and if you succeeded it became new party policy.

Believe it or not, if Reform had ever formed the government and enough citizens in each riding had told their Reform MP that they wanted marijuana legalized the MP would have voted for it! Could anyone say that about MPs from the other parties? Who are the REAL fundamentalists?

Harper just tempts you with what you want, dangling a carrot that you can never grab! He tells the party what it stands for, not the other way around, knowing full well that you don't have a better choice and will have to stick with him anyway.

So don't worry about the fundamentalist Christians in the CPC. They'll be disappointed too!

Edited May 21, 2010 by Wild Bill

[DrGreenthumb]

What a difference from Manning, who had a firm list of principles that you could examine and decide if you agreed. If he couldn't get enough agreement to get you on board, Manning would try to further persuade you and could always fall back on the party platform of representing the people first and foremost. You were free to try to persuade sufficient numbers of other party members to your view and if you succeeded it became new party policy.

Believe it or not, if Reform had ever formed the government and enough citizens in each riding had told their Reform MP that they wanted marijuana legalized the MP would have voted for it!

Harper just tempts you with what you want, dangling a carrot that you can never grab! He tells the party what it stands for, not the other way around, knowing full well that you don't have a better choice and will have to stick with him anyway.

So don't worry about the fundamentalist Christians in the CPC. They'll be disappointed too!

I actually voted Reform when Manning was leader. A friend of mine even ran for the party. I liked the idea of how the members set the policy not the leadership. That's partly why I like the NDP. We operate the same way. You'll notice that Layton never whipped the gun registry vote. I'm not convinced that Harper is not one of those "born again" nutters no matter what he said or did while in the NCC or the reform party. He has shown he is willing to play to the fundies who want to limit other people's choices, and use the law to force them to accept fundy Christian values, like hate of gays and pot users, who are doing nothing to hurt them in the first place.

I don't get why you would vote for Harper if you think is an autocrat and a liar? Their IS a better choice. MOve your vote to the NDP or even the Libs just this once, and if Harper doesn't get back into power the CPC will throw him out on his ass and select a different leader. Then you can go back to voting for them. Hell, if they had a leader with Libertarian leanings like Bernier I might even vote for them.

[Molly]

It doesn't much matter if he's a fundie or not. So long as he's willing to suck up to them, he is the equivalent.

I disagree with sentiment behind that warm and fuzzy "A political party is a sum of all of its parts, not just the leader."

The leader chooses the cabinet, approves the caucus, has huge influence as to who is on the party executive; the leader essentially controls party policy. While the party chooses the leader, the leader then chooses what parts of the party will be ascendant.

Fact is, I consider myself a conservative/libertarian.. but I can't live with this level nutter/fundie influence. (Nor the contempt for Canadian voters and institutions, nor the basic hard-core dishonesty of that crew.)

[Wild Bill]

I don't get why you would vote for Harper if you think is an autocrat and a liar? Their IS a better choice. MOve your vote to the NDP or even the Libs just this once, and if Harper doesn't get back into power the CPC will throw him out on his ass and select a different leader. Then you can go back to voting for them. Hell, if they had a leader with Libertarian leanings like Bernier I might even vote for them.

I could never vote NDP unless they changed A LOT, Dr. G! I abhor socialism. I consider it just a way of ripping off the "Little Red Hen". After reading books like Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and Orwell's "Animal Farm" I consider the NDP's philosophy despicable! I am willing to grant that many of its followers are well-intentioned but sadly poor in the thinking department.

As for the Liberals, they have no policies, no philosophy and with Ignatieff - no experience! I might as well vote for a high school students' council.

So what if Harper is anti-pot? It won't stop a single soul who wants to make their own choice. So what if he throws some bones to the Fundies? He won't allow any new laws that seriously cater to the Evangelicals. He knows he would just lose all the other votes!

That leaves somebody like me with all his other positions in government. I have some issues with what he WON'T do but most of what he HAS or WILL done jives with my own feelings.

I suspect it's far easier for you. From all your postings that I've read you seem to care solely and only about legalizing drug laws. Harper could intend to start a war with North Korea and if he was also going to legalize pot I think you'd support him!

I don't mean this to be insulting. I'm just pointing out that if you care about anything besides one and only one issue when deciding which party to vote for you've yet to post anything about it.

[wyly]

Dr. G., there was a good article in the Post yesterday. I'd reference more but the wife has already thrown the issue out. Anyhow, it was written by someone who had worked with Harper at the NCC for years. He found it amusing how so many folks keep insisting that Harper is some kind of "fundy" with religion. In all the years he worked beside him he saw absolutely no sign of it! In fact, he found him not very religious at all.

I worked with an actual Nazis for years but strangely he was just like everyone else...people are guarded about radical political beliefs and Canadians generally don't discuss their religious beliefs with co workers...I worked for 20 years with the same dozen or so people, religion was never a topic of discussion and of those people I only knew the relgion of one, a catholic...religion is no one's business but their own until they try foist their morals on others then it matters, for that reason secular government is a must a PM who brings his religious influence into politics is a concern for all of us...

So what if Harper is anti-pot? It won't stop a single soul who wants to make their own choice. So what if he throws some bones to the Fundies? He won't allow any new laws that seriously cater to the Evangelicals. He knows he would just lose all the other votes!

6 months in prison for possession of a few pot plants is more than anti-pot it goes strongly against public opinion that wants pot decriminalized...he won't make any dramatic changes it will be a death of a thousand cuts, small incremental changes that will creep into our lives...and the changes will come disguised behind economical reasons, law and order, national security or some other excuse...

It seems to be simply kneejerk, ad hominem leftie propaganda. They don't like him so that's a scary label to hang on him. This jives with what I knew of the man in the Reform days.

he belongs to a evangelical fundy church...he's a fundy...nutbars who want to convert everyone to their way of thinking and control those that do not... Edited May 21, 2010 by wyly