Martin vs. Harper - Good vs. Evil

[noelandmero]

By the way Playful; claims that Saddam gassed his own people is NOT a proven fact. In fact, according to the USA War College; the Kurds were likely gassed by accident as both the Iranians and the Iraqi military were using gas on each other. The Kurds just came in between. PLUS; according to their experts the gas poisoning they were showing symptoms of were indicative of the gas being used bu Iran. Of course, we must remember that at that time; Saddam was a close ally of the USA in their dispute with Iran; perhaps it IS just more American changing propaganda??????

My god what a load of crap . Please try reading one of the following books Saddam Hussein by Said Aburish( note it is by an Arab), The Kurds of Iraq: Tragedy and Hope by Michael M. Gunter or Saddam: King of Terror

by Con Coughlin. All of these books include either eyewitness acounts of the gas attacks or admissions by Iraqi officilas ocurred. You probably think hitler killed a few jews by mistake as well how ignorant.

[playfullfellow]

By the way Playful; claims that Saddam gassed his own people is NOT a proven fact. In fact, according to the USA War College; the Kurds were likely gassed by accident as both the Iranians and the Iraqi military were using gas on each other. The Kurds just came in between. PLUS; according to their experts the gas poisoning they were showing symptoms of were indicative of the gas being used bu Iran. Of course, we must remember that at that time; Saddam was a close ally of the USA in their dispute with Iran; perhaps it IS just more American changing propaganda??????

I suppose the holocaust never happened either. Do you deny that Hussein killed hundreds if not thousands in his bid for power. What of his sons and all the videos that show them shooting at "friends" getting a downed duck. The stories of rape and murder are probably propaganda too I suppose. Just the evil western world against a despot they dont like. There is plenty of evidence that supports the evilness of Hussein and his family.

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think anybody questions that Saddam was a bad person, that isn't the question.

The question is whether the US has the right to unilaterally decide who should lead countries by going in and invading. Since they had, and still have, no real evidence of Iraq's WMD or a working tie between Saddam and bin Laden, they have no such right.

The US has a history of installing and propping up despots, Saddam being one of them. If they really wanted to get rid of him they could have rallied the world behind them when a way was being sought to replace the sanctions with something that worked. They chose not to do that.

Toss in the various PNAC musings about how to take over the world, most dependent on Iraq, and that so many PNAC members are now pivotal in the Bush White House and alarm bells start to go off.

[playfullfellow]

The question is whether the US has the right to unilaterally decide who should lead countries by going in and invading. Since they had, and still have, no real evidence of Iraq's WMD or a working tie between Saddam and bin Laden, they have no such right.

I think the answer as to why Bush invaded Iraq is pretty simple. Ironically, I think Bush is kind of simple, he is not my favorite US president but I think he was the right president for 9/11. Anyways, I think he was just finishing what his old man had started. Is what he did right, thats debateable I admit but I do think that he was trying to do the right thing. If he was just doing it to show US strength in the middle east, well that is wrong, if he was doing it to get rid of an evil person like hussein, then I tend to agree with him.

[Argus]

If they really wanted to get rid of him they could have rallied the world behind them when a way  was being sought to replace the sanctions with something that worked.  They chose not to do that.

.

Actually, they did try to do that, to get security council backing. Unfortunately, several members of the council were being paid by Saddam, esp the French, so there was ultimately no chance. As to the rest of the UN. Let's face it, most of them are despots and tyrants. Why would they agree the US should do away with Saddam because he was uh, a despot and tyrant?

[caesar]

Playful: I am not saying Saddam was a nice guy; He was placed in power, basically, by the USA. His sons were evil, no doubt. I am just saying that much evidence against him has been proven unreliable. There were no WMD found in Iraq. The USA can't have it both way and expect to be believed. when the Kurd gassing took place; the USA claimed it was an accident and Iranian gas;(At that time Iraq was an ally of the USA) now they turn around claiming Saddam deliberately gassed his own people. Saddam was not the only target in the invasion of Iraq; thousands of innocent Iraqis died; thousands more were maimed. Hundreds of young American/ British soldiers were and still are being killed or maimed; others will probably have trauma (mental) problems. Was it worth it; UN inspectors were still being allowed to carry on their search. Many of these American deaths were caused by their own side. Do you not think that those responsible for accidently killing their own soldiers will not have traumatic post stress problems.

Is Iraq better off today; are people safer, do they have good infrastructure or medical care? Do they have jobs?

Is North America safer from terrorism? NO

To try to make this similar to the holocaust was a cheap shot; there is no credible evidence that the holocaust did not happen. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

However, that is one of the reasons I do NOT support Hate Crimes. There are those that try to put a spin on any criticism or questions about events; using this cry of hate crimes to silence those who question events legitimately. Much like many black criminals who scream discrimination without merit.

[jacqueline944]

Maybe it is coincidence that jacqueline944 and liberalpaulmartin registered the same day - or maybe it's more likely that it's representative of the groundswell of support out there AGAINST Stephen Harper. People are finally starting to wake up about what this guy represents. He and his racist, homophobic, pro-life caucus are NOT what a progressive Canada needs. Paul Martin is.

[Sully]

People are finally starting to wake up about what this guy represents. He and his racist, homophobic, pro-life caucus are NOT what a progressive Canada needs. Paul Martin is.

Since these opinions are so obvious in your mind, prove them, just because you are of a different opinion of Harper does not make him or his caucus racist or homophobic and so what if they are pro-life, they are allowed to be, and time and time again they state that position. They are not misleading anyone.

Hahahaha Paul our saviour, hahahahah we definitely know that he lies!!!!!

[Hawk]

Maybe it is coincidence that jacqueline944 and liberalpaulmartin registered the same day - or maybe it's more likely that it's representative of the groundswell of support out there AGAINST Stephen Harper. People are finally starting to wake up about what this guy represents. He and his racist, homophobic, pro-life caucus are NOT what a progressive Canada needs. Paul Martin is.

As was stated earlier, please do offer supporting EVIDENCE of all those charges. Your Liberal rants are tiring to read since they are 90% of the time completely the same as what every other Liberal says, signs of shared brainwashing Liberal media =p

You think your precious Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were/are saints? LOL, here is a compiled list I found that list some of the corruptions of the Liberal government in the last 10 years:

http://www.davidchatters.com/parliament.cfm

Interesting eh?

[Greg]

Maybe it is coincidence that jacqueline944 and liberalpaulmartin registered the same day - or maybe . . .

There is no coincidence here, jacqueline944 and liberalpaulmartin are the same person (same IP address) and jacqueline944 has been warned about multiple accounts.

He and his racist, homophobic, pro-life caucus are NOT what a progressive Canada needs

This statement is about as productive as saying "Paul Martin Supports Child Pornograghy?"

Lets cut this type of trolling out.

Update: I just want to clarify that I personally don't think that Paul Martin supports child porn, but rather I was referring to the Conservative Party's huge press release blunder over the weekend.

Edited June 21, 2004 by Greg

[jacqueline944]

You want evidence of Harper's caucus? Let's look at some of what they've been saying on everything from a woman's right to choose to homosexuality to immigration. I, personally, find their comments at best regressive (we're going to open up the ancient debate of capital punishment??) and at worst intolerant:

"Sir, you can go home now, we've cleaned out your cage." (Harvey Grigg, Vancouver East Conservative Candidate, responding to a question on affairs in the Middle East, when a member of the audience heckled him, June 9, 2004, CTV News)

On Sexual Orientation and Hate Crimes

Frank Luellau (Kitchener-Conestoga)

“Luellau called homosexuality ‘unnatural behaviour,’ and said the government should provide counselling for gays and lesbians. "I know people who have changed their ways," Luellau said of gays who have received counselling. (The Record, Waterloo Region, Thursday, June 10, 2004)

Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke)

“The danger in having sexual orientation just listed is that encompasses, for example, pedophiles. I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed.” (June 5, 2004 CTV News)

On Abortion

Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast)

Kenney said: “If they say they’re personally opposed to abortion but they don’t want to impose their opposition on society, ask them if they’re personally opposed to child abuse, ask them if they’re personally opposed to slavery.” (Canadian Catholic News, May 24, 2004)

Rob Merrifield, Conservative Health Critic, (Yellowhead)

In an interview yesterday, Rob Merrifield said independent counselling would be "valuable" for women contemplating abortion because "people who take part in it may only be seeing one side of it. "I would think that they [should] have all of the information in front of them. I think [with] any procedure that's a valuable thing for them to have," said the Alberta MP, who is opposed to abortion. (Globe and Mail, June 1, 2004)

Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK)

“Maurice Vellacott believes we need to oppose euthanasia and end tax funding for medically unnecessary abortions.” (Campaign brochure, June 2004)

On Immigration and Refugees

Dean Martin (Halton, ON):

"As all of the new communities pop up (in Halton), there's a greater issue with crime and sentencing, and security locally and nationally." (Milton Champion, May 28, 2004)

Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC)

"Canada needs to decide who its refugees are by more actively going to the camps and deciding on our own who can be a success in our country. ... We do have a process of going to these places and trying to figure out who can have some English capability and perhaps some education background and some social supports, but we don't select enough of those." (CKNW Radio, June 3, 2004)

On the Death Penalty

Jon Carey (West Nova, NS)

“I personally support capital punishment. I think it’s justice, quite honestly.” (Halifax Daily News, June 3, 2004)

Tom Jackson (Hamilton Mountain, ON)

“I personally do support capital punishment … for premeditated murder.” (Toronto Star, June 3, 2004)

Peter MacKay (Central Nova, NS) Alliance-Conservative Deputy Leader

“I believe personally, the option should be there for the worst of the worst.” (Halifax Daily News, June 3, 2004)

[Hawk]

You want evidence of Harper's caucus? Let's look at some of what they've been saying on everything from a woman's right to choose to homosexuality to immigration. I, personally, find their comments at best regressive (we're going to open up the ancient debate of capital punishment??) and at worst intolerant:

See you just supported your own downfall, your basing this on personal arguments and not on facts. Your personal opinion has been noted, however that does not justify calling them a 'racist, homophobic, pro-life caucus'

Your personal opinions on Abortion, gay marriages, immigration, and capital punishment are yours to have... but they are not everyone's, and therefore claiming anyone that doesn't hold your views is a 'racist, homophobic' or some such name is extremely childish and ignorant.

Intolerance is actually in your court, simply look at how vehemently you are reacting towards those who hold right-wing ideologies =p

[Reverend Blair]

The only ideology I fear is their willingness to impose their regressive ideas on the rest of us. Harper has refused to state that he will not use the notwithstanding clause to take away rights. He has refused to rule out letting a private members bill on abortion go ahead. He has stated that he will ban same-sex mariage.

What's next, public schools being forced to teach creationism in science class?

[Sully]

He has refused to rule out letting a private members bill on abortion go ahead. He has stated that he will ban same-sex mariage.

Chance of a private member's bill passing, slim to none. But its great to see democracy alive and well within at least one party, weird that the other parties think that members having free votes is such a bad thing. Oh wait I do recall Pauly saying he would allow free votes to reform the democratic deficit.

I do not believe the Cons will take away the right of a woman to choose. I think they will address some of the issues around abortion tho. Hell I do not think the taxpayer should be flipping the bills for abortions, and in many cases time and time again for the same women, its their mistake make them pay.

Harper will defend the traditional definition of marriage and I am glad for that. No where does he say people can be fired for being gay or be arrested cause they are a lesbian. NO NO NO, all he says is that he will defend the traditional definition of marriage, no bones about it. He is all for the civil unions with the rights of married couples. He sees marriage as something that is sacred to him and his party agrees, so what do you think that they are not allowed an opinion.

[Reverend Blair]

So what's the traditional definition of marriage? I would say that it's two people who love each other enough to be willing to make a commitment. Notice how there's no mention of gender in there? That's because it doesn't matter.

Any traditional definition based on religious values, which is what Harper's argument comes down to in the end, has no place in government or legislation. Various cultures, including traditional aboriginal cultures that predate Christian Europeans arriving in Canada, accept same-sex relationships for what they are...two people who love each other. How come we have to bow to Harper's narrow definition?

[CanadianPatriot]

Any traditional definition based on religious values, which is what Harper's argument comes down to in the end, has no place in government or legislation. Various cultures, including traditional aboriginal cultures that predate Christian Europeans arriving in Canada, accept same-sex relationships for what they are...two people who love each other. How come we have to bow to Harper's narrow definition?

Our entire constitution was based on religious values. We can´t just ignore those values. Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. If we extend those rights to same sex marriage, whats stopping us from extending in incest or bestial marriages in the future... afterall if they truly ´love´eachother, why not?

[Hugo]

Any traditional definition based on religious values... has no place in government or legislation.

Do you know what the very first line of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is?

I'll tell you: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

[Reverend Blair]

Some of us would very much like to see that changed, since it excludes us.

It doesn't specify which god though. Are you suggesting that if somebody comes from a religious tradition that accepts same-sex marriage that they be allowed to marry but those from a different tradition not be allowed to marry? What if somebody changes traditions? How old does a religion have to be considered traditional? What about those of us who believe in no god and no organised religion?

My wife and I were married by a JP. We specifically asked that no there be no mention of religion during the ceremony. Would we be free from the imposition of your traditions, since they are not our traditions? What if my wife was a husband instead? Would that make a difference?

There is no room for religion in the governance of a democratic and multi-cultural society.

More than that though, why do you even care? If a pair of gay men next door are married or living outside your definition of traditional marriage, how does that affect you? It doesn't. It does not change things one bit. Nobody is forcing your church to recognise their marriage, and that the government recognises it is really only a legal matter.

[Michael Hardner]

Chance of a private member's bill passing, slim to none. But its great to see democracy alive and well within at least one party, weird that the other parties think that members having free votes is such a bad thing. Oh wait I do recall Pauly saying he would allow free votes to reform the democratic deficit.

Free votes are an interesting idea, but I'm really suspicious of the fact that most CPC candidates are mum about their own positions on hot-button issues.

Harper should have demanded that his own candidates be more forthcoming, since free votes are his party's policy.

I do not believe the Cons will take away the right of a woman to choose. I think they will address some of the issues around abortion tho. Hell I do not think the taxpayer should be flipping the bills for abortions, and in many cases time and time again for the same women, its their mistake make them pay.

Harper will defend the traditional definition of marriage and I am glad for that. No where does he say people can be fired for being gay or be arrested cause they are a lesbian. NO NO NO, all he says is that he will defend the traditional definition of marriage, no bones about it. He is all for the civil unions with the rights of married couples. He sees marriage as something that is sacred to him and his party agrees, so what do you think that they are not allowed an opinion.

I don't think that it is actually party policy. This is another one of those free vote issues, and again the local candidates are keeping pretty quiet about it.

[caesar]

With the high divorce rate; marriage is hardly sacred anymore. I would prefer a different name with the same economic priveleges. I do think they should not have the same adoption rights as the traditional family.

[idealisttotheend]

Isn't the rub here though that marriage is a religious institution to start with? I mean, the word "marriage" is more of a religious term than a legal term. So churches ought to have more say on it's use than the State.

My own position is that gay people should have absolutely every right that straight people have. But they might have to show enough respect for people with "traditional values" that they should choose a term other than marriage to describe their "unions." Any other term. To argue that civil unions are discrimitory when they confer all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage is to argue that refering to someone who has sex with someone of the same gender as a homosexual,l is discrimitory.

IMO, it is a question of terms not rights in this case and at this point.

[caesar]

Let's hit the big issues. Harper would have had us in Iraq; He had the nerve to go to a foreign country and to apologize for Canadians not joining the USA in its invasion of a disarmed country. He still wants Canada to have closer ties with the USA. This is NOT the time to make overtures to the USA. The USA should come apologizing to Canada for Bush's arrogant demands and punitive Trade relations since he took office.

Canadians who were against the Iraq invasion have been proven to be 100% correct.

Our Prime Minister should be actively seeking more diverse trading partners for Canada. We can still trade with the USA when they are fair trades.

HEALTH CARE: Harper gives out hints of allowing more private health care. We are already experiencing a two tier health care here in BC. One can pay for using a clinic; not the actual test if they want tests to be done in a reasonable time frame.

Harper lacks any class and self control. He opens his big mouth and speaks without thinking. The claim that the liberals and NDP "supported" child pornography sounds very libelous to me. Do we need someone who will be an embarassment? Not me. Martin may not be perfect but he has lowered our deficit and is a much more palatable choice for Prime Minister

[Hawk]

First off, ceasar:

Regarding your post about Stephen Harper going to the States to apologise, about Canadians against the war being 100% correct, and about the Americans needing to apologise to us. Your 100% wrong.

Why? Because what we did to the States was literally a backstabbing, we are close neighbours and allies NOT enemies. We share a border, we must stick together through hard times not bicker and fight. It hurts us especially economically, and it hurts a relationship which has flourished for a very long time. Your problem is that you are anti-American, and I cannot help you with that one because I personally am not. I am pro-Canadian, and I am not lying to myself about the significance of America to Canadian interests.

When you say that the Canadians against the war were 100% correct you intentionally ignore my previous posts to you, so please do refer back to them. Your opinions are not facts, so please do stop using them.

Secondly you posted about Health Care, yet you again posted your opinion.

Privatization provides competition, competition creates lowered costs and better/quicker service, lowered costs mean cheaper service, and better/quicker service means shorter wait lists and less 'accidents'. Communist Russia tried to centralize everything, it didn't work, centralization does NOT work past the Municiple level and never has. It merely ends up with a corrupt, inefficient, and dangerous government that only survives by lying to their population and leading them to believe they are the 'enlightened ones'.

When you say Harper lacks self-control and class, and that he opens his big mouth without thinking... maybe you should look at the Liberals. Recall with me the Liberal MPs swearing at Americans on national television, does that sounds like a party that thinks before speaking? Self control? class? Look at the source I cited earlier, it lists 65 (and increasing when found) scandals of the Liberal government. Since you didn't look at it before here it is again:

http://www.davidchatters.com/parliament.cfm

Harper will not be an embarrasment, how can we be anymore embarrassed after what this current administration has turned this country into? He lowered the deficit simply by cutting provincial payouts which in turn forced Provinces to cut spending in many areas (including HEALTH CARE since that is a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction) so the real monster you are declaring to us all is truly the ones you defend =)

If you want to support the Finance minister with a legacy of scandals and the destruction of Canada's pride, Canada's morals, Canada's integrity, and Canada's constitution then by all means vote for Paul Martin and let him continue his destructive work for another 4 years =p

[August1991]

I would prefer a different name with the same economic priveleges.

Isn't the rub here though that marriage is a religious institution to start with? I mean, the word "marriage" is more of a religious term than a legal term. So churches ought to have more say on it's use than the State.

Gays and lesbians had the right before (I believe grandfathered to 1985) to a civil union. This grants all the same rights and obligations of a marriage contract.

What is being requested now is only the name or the word.

Our Prime Minister should be actively seeking more diverse trading partners for Canada. We can still trade with the USA when they are fair trades.

How do you define a "fair trade"?

Why? Because what we did to the States was literally a backstabbing, we are close neighbours and allies NOT enemies. We share a border, we must stick together through hard times not bicker and fight.

When Canada refused to join the US in this Iraq war, we were not backstabbing anyone. Would you say the US backstabbed us when it chose not to join us in 1939? Governments in different countries choose as they wish to do what they want. Canada and the US and France are all democracies. The governments chose in democratic fashion. Respect that choice.

[Hawk]

Secondly Rev:

Some of us would very much like to see that changed, since it excludes us. 

Really? So you want it changed to exlude us? Wow great sense of equality there =p

It doesn't specify which god though.  Are you suggesting that if somebody comes from a religious tradition that accepts same-sex marriage that they be allowed to marry but those from a different tradition not be allowed to marry?  What if somebody changes traditions?  How old does a religion have to be considered traditional?  What about those of us who believe in no god and no organised religion?

First off, Canada was founded by Protestants, therefore when they say 'under God' that means the CHRISTIAN God, if you couldn't figure that one out on your own you should stop being 'witty'. I may sound harsh but your cynical attitude is wearing.

My wife and I were married by a JP.  We specifically asked that no there be no mention of religion during the ceremony.  Would we be free from the imposition of your traditions, since they are not our traditions?  What if my wife was a husband instead?  Would that make a difference?

As was stated before Marriage was originally a union before God and State, something that at the time of our constitution was accepted and promoted. However Canada has allowed the religion of Secularism and anti-Christianity to seep and poison the values this nation was founded on. You claim to be Canadian yet you spit on your own Christian heritage, while you may not be a Christian that does not mean you should attempt to destroy or conform the traditions of those who are.

If your wife was a husband go ahead and 'marry' them and do whatever unnatural things you want together, but that is only because those loony Liberals pushed through the legislation as they do with anything they want (and you defend them saying they are 'democratic', and you say the right-wing are the dictators-to-be.. guess what, there is already a dictator ruling Canada)

It should not be socially acceptable because it is not socially natural, man was not made for man, woman was not made for woman. If it was natural they could reproduce, but they can't, they can only degrade the values of our society and lower standards. Once we allow homosexuals what is stopping child-molesting or poligamy from being 'ok'? Hey they are people too right? They can love the little kid they are having sex with, so that makes it all ok right?

There is no room for religion in the governance of a democratic and multi-cultural society.

Funny isn't it how every democracy was founded under religion and yet you say it has no place in our culture, think that one through before defending it.

More than that though, why do you even care?  If a pair of gay men next door are married or living outside your definition of traditional marriage, how does that affect you?  It doesn't.  It does not change things one bit.  Nobody is forcing your church to recognise their marriage, and that the government recognises it is really only a legal matter.

Bill C-250.

Now we, the straight men and women of Canada, can be jailed for showign distate for homosexuality. Oh, and did I mention it adds enough generalization to possibly support the banning of religious texts that preach against homosexuality? Freedom of religion violation anyone? What happened to 'the right of your fist ends where the right of my nose begins'? Your supporting your own downfall Rev, plain and simple, if the values you pursue were allowed to ferment you would end up with a comrade Canadian system with everything you want... workshops, poverty, dictator, nobody better than you except the officials who berate the rest of you for wanting more, no freedoms, no rights, the good of the whole, secret police.

Socialism is a very dangerous and blind path to follow reverend, tread it carefully.