Sir Bandelot Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 After reading books like Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and Orwell's "Animal Farm" I consider the NDP's philosophy despicable! Perhaps, but one can also say the same about the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Me, me, and only me". Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) 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... 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... .....and by arbitrarily casting him in with all of your other "evangelicals" like Tommy Douglas and the Salvation Army, you clearly demonstrate who the actual nutbar is. Why can't you accept that many people "belong" to churches but don't necessarily embace every aspect of the faith. I've already pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to homosexuality and abortion and believe in the "second coming" amongst other similarities with "evangelicals". Yet many Catholics are opposed to one or more of those beliefs. Surely you are not implying that it is no longer acceptable to have a person who attends a Catholic church to be Prime Minister? Or is that what you believe. It's already established that Harper attends Church maybe 6 times a year. Many, probably most people attend a specific Church because their parents did.....and yet you would call them all nutbars? The Charter of Rights protects us from attitudes such as yours. The fact that you worked with nazis for years helps explain things a bit. Edited May 21, 2010 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Wild Bill Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 Perhaps, but one can also say the same about the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "Me, me, and only me". It would seem you've never actually read her words. You're just echoing those of her critics. "Me, me, and only me"? Yes, but what does that mean? Her critics claim that it means don't do anything for anyone else. Nothing could be more wrong! The important point is "I CHOOSE for myself!" There's nothing wrong with doing something for a friend or a loved one. There's nothing wrong in contributing to a charity that you believe in, either. A Randite might give his life for his child, or bail out a friend from financial difficulty, or support the SPCA if they love animals, as long as HE chooses for his child, HE chooses who his friends are and HE chooses where his charity goes! Contrast that with our present system. The state TAKES your money and IT decides where it should go! Somebody ELSE decides who's child should be saved, who should receive financial aid and how charity dollars should be spread around. Not only do you get no choice in giving the money, no choice as to who receives it and no choice as to which charities are deserving, you don't even get any credit for giving it! It's merely your social and civic duty! What a load of crap! Even worse, usually the ones taking your money live higher on the hog than you do, since they are designated "special"! The government steals my money. I have no power to stop that but I don't have to believe they are in the right. I can only hope that at least some trickles down to keep the roads plowed. Meanwhile I do what I can for myself, my family, friends and the Sally Ann. I choose the Sally Ann 'cuz if I toss a ten spot in their bucket I know that $9.95 will actually go to do some good! If it goes to the United Way, only the nickel might do some good. The rest gets eaten up in "delivery services" and "internal costs". You really ought read Rand before you criticize. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jbg Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 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. Why shouldn't neutrality be an option? Does everyone have to have a position on being either "anti-gay" or "pro-gay"? What about equal rights, assuming that the people involve do tehir job or otherwise are good members of the community? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Argus Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 Gee I wonder why? Maybe because he and the rest of his party are prejudiced towards homosexuals? The Tories are to the Left of the Democrats on this issue, and Harper's position is basically the same as Obama. However, if Obama came to Toronto to speak, gay activists would be falling all over themselves to get tickets so they could applaud and praise the man. They'd be delirious with pleasure and enthusiasm at the presence of THEIR guy. But if Harper showed up they'd be spitting mad and angrily waving protest signs and yelling in their high, piping voices about how cruel and evil he is. Make sense? Nope. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 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. It seems to me you interpret the word fundamentalist to mean anyone who actually believes the words written in their holy books. Under this standard, virtually all Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, the majority of Jews, and certainly, the likes of Obama, are fundamentalists. But you only apply the term to those you don't like. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 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. Cite? 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. There are laws against assault which I'm pretty sure cover gays, so where's the problem? People say nasty things about them? Too bad, People say nasty things about fat people too, and nobody is calling for special protection to spare their hurt feelings. Here's a question. Who do you think suffers more from discrimination in life, in housing, in employment and promotions, and from insults and rudeness? A gay guy or a fat person? You can whine about funding for the pride parade when the government stops funding churches through tax credits and government hanndouts(youth for Christ?) Seems to me churches are involved in soup kitchens, in providing shelter to the homeless, in organizing child care, in helping the downtrodden. What exactly are the gays at the pride parade offering? Free blow jobs? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 D you even read my posts before commenting on them? I have stated that I AM a man of faith, Oh please. If you're a man of faith it's a pretty damned shaky faith. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Dave_ON Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 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. It's not just women and gays, it's also Urban Ontario that isn't particularly taken by Mr. Harper. If he hopes to get a majority this is where he needs to focus. As a side note Gays aren't just vocal, they're generally one of the best funded activist groups, given that the majority are well paid professionals and have no kids. This give them surplus income they can throw at political groups. I think Mr. Harper, as are many others, is underestimating the political and monetary impact of gay culture in Canada. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Argus Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 Why shouldn't neutrality be an option? Does everyone have to have a position on being either "anti-gay" or "pro-gay"? What about equal rights, assuming that the people involve do tehir job or otherwise are good members of the community? I'm pretty much neutral on gays. But most people, reading my words probably think I hate gays. If I have an ideology it's practicality, and no one has ever demonstrated a need for special protections for gays. My impression is they're doing fine economically, so no need to legislate there. I haven't heard of a wave of gay homeless people, so no problems there. Gay activists with their endless victim whine get on my nerves. They're not looking for equality. What they're looking for is that their behaviour be respected, but you can't legislate respect, and, frankly, some of their behaviour leads to disrespect. Gay men are pretty much all complete sluts, and many are pretty open abut their enthusiasm for public sex. Thus you have gay bathhouses, and wild goings on at gay bars and clubs, holes in bathroom stalls, and gay men wandering around in certain parks after dark begging men to let them perform oral sex on them (sheesh). Keep your shit at home. I don't care about it but I don't want to see it either. And don't ever demand I respect a lifestyle which includes the kinds of perverted goings on the gay community has made itself notorious for (bondage and sadomasochism anyone?). Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wild Bill Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 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... If you're going to argue that "something may have been hidden", "it's a conspiracy!" or any other "what if" positions then debate is useless. "What if" Harper is actually a "V" reptilian setting us up to have all our water stolen? (classic V, of course!) Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Argus Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) It's not just women and gays, it's also Urban Ontario that isn't particularly taken by Mr. Harper. If he hopes to get a majority this is where he needs to focus. What he needs to do is come out with a series of policies and programs which excite people. The number one concern of the public now is health care. What have we heard from the Tories on it? Nothing. Here's what would excite me about a possible Tory majority. If they announced that the day after election day they would send a knowledgeable 3 member commission to selected European nations to study how their health care systems work and would, within one year, begin to implement changes to the Canada Health Act to reform health care in Canada in light of those systems. And that their goal would be to diminish wait times for services to no more than one would expect in the best European systems. In short, they need a big, audacious program that catches the public's eye. But the last few years the Tories have seemed hesitant and timid about any kind of major reforms or changes. And they're running out of time. Ignatieff will get one election, then the Liberals will replace him with a Frenchman who will garner two or three dozen more seats from Quebec and sweep to power. Edited May 21, 2010 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Dave_ON Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 Why shouldn't neutrality be an option? Does everyone have to have a position on being either "anti-gay" or "pro-gay"? What about equal rights, assuming that the people involve do tehir job or otherwise are good members of the community? We’re not talking the average Joe on the street in which case you’re correct. We’re talking the PM of Canada, and a savvy PM would avoid such sticky issues as deftly as possible. For some reason, Gays and Quebec are two areas he can’t seem to get right. You can't from a political stand point be neutral unless you never deal with issues directly relating to gays. Pride funding is a prime example. Either you fund it and appear to be pro-gay and disregard your religious supporters a relatively small but vocal group or you don't fund it and appear to be anti-gay and pandering to religious groups. Gays are also a relatively small and vocal group, the advantage they have over religious conservatives is better funding. There is a long list of reasons why Mr. Harper and the CPC appear to be anti-gay, voting against pretty much any legislation that had the word gay in it for starters. Reneging on Diversite funding was just icing on the cake. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Sir Bandelot Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 You really ought read Rand before you criticize. We all had to read it in high school, a long time ago. Although what you've said makes sense, that is what you took away from it. Others may interpret it completely differently. Whatever the self chooses, whatever it wants is good. Whatever others might want or expect, that conflicts with what the self wants, is irrelevant. There should be no sense of obligation to give up something the self wants, just because others expect it from us. There are times when this philosophy would fail utterly, as in situations where there needs to be teamwork, where there must be sacrifice play for the outcome to win. there needs to be people who are willing to give up something from themselves for the greater need of the group. We can't all be the goal scorer, who gets the glory. Someone has to take the hits. Quote
Alta4ever Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 There are times when this philosophy would fail utterly, as in situations where there needs to be teamwork, where there must be sacrifice play for the outcome to win. there needs to be people who are willing to give up something from themselves for the greater need of the group. We can't all be the goal scorer, who gets the glory. Someone has to take the hits. And in those times its not the idiots in government that do it most effectively its individuals who stand up and lead by example. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Dave_ON Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 Gay MEN are pretty much all complete sluts, and many are pretty open abut their enthusiasm for public sex. Thus you have gay bathhouses, and wild goings on at gay bars and clubs, holes in bathroom stalls, and gay men wandering around in certain parks after dark begging men to let them perform oral sex on them (sheesh). Keep your shit at home. I don't care about it but I don't want to see it either. And don't ever demand I respect a lifestyle which includes the kinds of perverted goings on the gay community has made itself notorious for (bondage and sadomasochism anyone?). I think you've just describe men in general. The difference being gay men tend to be more honest and comfortable with their sexuality. My question is how do you know about the goings on in gay clubs/bars? That's really quite immaterial though; you're being quite disingenuous painting all gays with the same brush while leaving straights "blameless". Bondage, S&M and all forms of kink are not proprietary to gay culture. It exists in straight relationships as well, ever heard of a dominatrix? That one's all on your side I'm afraid. What about strip clubs, "escorts", skin flick theatres. Lots of straight guys go to those. Fact is gay men come in all shapes and sizes just like straight men do, though generally we wear nicer shoes . Truth is you probably know a lot more gay people than you realize, most of us just generally leave our rainbows at home. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Oleg Bach Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 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. A fundamentalist is a person who believes the cosmic world of God needs smoke and mirrors in order to operate - water into wine..virgin births - and turning the other cheek...when it is all in the translation - a fundy is a partial Christian that fell for the politicalization of the old movement. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 And in those times its not the idiots in government that do it most effectively its individuals who stand up and lead by example. Agreed on that. The idiots in government are actually an impediment to those who want to stand up and lead by example! Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 I think you've just describe men in general. No, only perverted men. The difference being gay men tend to be more honest and comfortable with their sexuality. I see... so you think heterosexual men are being dishonest. They're really gay inside but can't admit it? Good lord man Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted May 21, 2010 Report Posted May 21, 2010 No, only perverted men. I see... so you think heterosexual men are being dishonest. They're really gay inside but can't admit it? Good lord man I don't think that is what he was saying at all. Gay men have just already overcome the stigma of being gay, so they are not as prone to hide their hornyness. I think all men are pretty horny or at least most of us. You gonna tell me you've never fantasized about a 3way with 2 girls? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 I think you've just describe men in general. The difference being gay men tend to be more honest and comfortable with their sexuality. Oh c'mon. Even back in the 60's they had gratuitous sex gay bars. I had the misfortune of innocently being caught in one where they actually locked the doors and the party began. It didn't matter who the partners were - it was all about gratuitous sex. It wouldn't be such a big deal if 30% of the population was gay and this was just an extreme sector of the fcation. But lets face it - best estimates are that 3% of the population might be gay....or have "tried" being gay. We get an inflated sense of the population because of the concentrations in major cities in specific spots.....and the media spotlight. Regardless, it's obvious that a good percentage of the gay population has gratuitous sex and multiple partners as a cornerstone of their culture.....and don't get me wrong - I KNOW there are committed and loving gay couples out there.....but don't even TRY to equate the Gay/Lesbian attitude towards sex with that of heterosexuals. Just take a peek at any Pride parade and tell me I'm wrong. Quote Back to Basics
Jack Weber Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Oh c'mon. Even back in the 60's they had gratuitous sex gay bars. I had the misfortune of innocently being caught in one where they actually locked the doors and the party began. It didn't matter who the partners were - it was all about gratuitous sex. It wouldn't be such a big deal if 30% of the population was gay and this was just an extreme sector of the fcation. But lets face it - best estimates are that 3% of the population might be gay....or have "tried" being gay. We get an inflated sense of the population because of the concentrations in major cities in specific spots.....and the media spotlight. Regardless, it's obvious that a good percentage of the gay population has gratuitous sex and multiple partners as a cornerstone of their culture.....and don't get me wrong - I KNOW there are committed and loving gay couples out there.....but don't even TRY to equate the Gay/Lesbian attitude towards sex with that of heterosexuals. Just take a peek at any Pride parade and tell me I'm wrong. Mr.Canada will be giving us all a peek of this behaviour very soon!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Moonlight Graham Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 Oh c'mon. Even back in the 60's they had gratuitous sex gay bars. I had the misfortune of innocently being caught in one where they actually locked the doors and the party began. It didn't matter who the partners were - it was all about gratuitous sex. It wouldn't be such a big deal if 30% of the population was gay and this was just an extreme sector of the fcation. But lets face it - best estimates are that 3% of the population might be gay....or have "tried" being gay. We get an inflated sense of the population because of the concentrations in major cities in specific spots.....and the media spotlight. Regardless, it's obvious that a good percentage of the gay population has gratuitous sex and multiple partners as a cornerstone of their culture.....and don't get me wrong - I KNOW there are committed and loving gay couples out there.....but don't even TRY to equate the Gay/Lesbian attitude towards sex with that of heterosexuals. Just take a peek at any Pride parade and tell me I'm wrong. I don't think lesbians are any more promiscuous than straight women/couples. But men are men. They are horny and they cheat. I would imagine that many gay men are sexual animals (like straight men) and do have more partners than straight couples or lesbians. The only thing stopping straight men from having sex with any woman they meet is that the women aren't nearly as horny...unfortunately. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Dave_ON Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 No, only perverted men. I see... so you think heterosexual men are being dishonest. They're really gay inside but can't admit it? Good lord man Umm no that's not what I said in the least. Straight men aren't particularly honest with themselves about what they want. Fact is most straight men are just as much a "slut" as Argus put as gay men are. Do attempt to read the post before you respond. If the vast majority of men aren't "perverted" as you so prudishly put it. Why then is it that the porn and other sex related industries generate billions of dollars annually? Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Dave_ON Posted May 22, 2010 Report Posted May 22, 2010 I don't think that is what he was saying at all. Gay men have just already overcome the stigma of being gay, so they are not as prone to hide their hornyness. I think all men are pretty horny or at least most of us. You gonna tell me you've never fantasized about a 3way with 2 girls? Well of course he'll deny it, but that doesn't make it any less true Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
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.