For the NDPers thinking of voting Liberal.

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: For the NDPers thinki

Sorry, 'bout that, Finder. I hadn't realised that you'd posted it.

There's a Globe and Mail story on it too. I guess the Conservative accusations that nothing like this ever shows up in the press are false.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: For the NDPers thinki

Reverend Blair said:
Sorry, 'bout that, Finder. I hadn't realised that you'd posted it.

There's a Globe and Mail story on it too. I guess the Conservative accusations that nothing like this ever shows up in the press are false.

No problem.
But as I was trying to tell him, the Xmas season most likely just delayed the telling of this story. If you ask me the coverage of this event is more then enough, and I'm surprised it got this much around this season as well. *shrugs*
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: For the NDPers thinki

I think it only got this much because of the season. On a faster news day, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.

One story I've been waiting to hear on the news is the Conservative supporter who's been handing out pamphlets (not party endorsed) showing aborted fetuses in Anne McLellan's riding. He was bragging about it on Free Dominion. Imagine your kid coming home from school and finding one of those in the mailbox...

That should be in the press because it brings the abortion issue back into the campaign. The Liberals should be publicising the hell out of it, but apparently they have a policy of not commenting on anything this idiot does.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
Calberty said:
Oops, forgot the NDP wants to spend even more billions ...and more billions and more billions.... 8O 8O 8O 8O ..and more....
Calberty ... either participate in intelligent debate or go play solitaire or something. You're annoying and disruptive to the thread when you keep repeating the same thing over and over. If you haven't got anything to say, there's virtue in not saying it.
Cosmo - Mod/Admin
 

Breakthrough2006

Electoral Member
Dec 2, 2005
172
0
16
Where did you read that the Liberals will get my support, Breakthrough? You didn't.

Rev, I don't make posts just for your pleasure. I know you're voting NDP but you have no problem advising other NDP supporters to vote Liberal in their riding if it will get them elected.

I think it is well worth noting that the Conservatives are just as bad on this particular issue, maybe worse though.

Really? Do you have any proof of that? Or are you going to post something that was said 18 years ago, or really has nothing to do with the Conservatives party. The fact is the Liberals are FAR worse at mud slinging than the Conservatives could ever hope to be.

You Conservatives deserve no political advantage from something that you too are guilty of. That your party is seeking such an advantage shows an inherent dishonesty.

That's rather rich don't you think? This is like the third time this election alone that the Liberals have been caught making defamatory racist or bigoted remarks. You look at it as par for the course but I look at it as unprecidented arrogance. They actually believe that it's their right to govern and they should be able to say "anything" and "steal" as much money as they want.

Liberals and Conservatives alike have been saying all sorts of things about the NDP. There are examples on this very board of vicious, ill-informed, and hateful attacks on Svend Robinson by Conservatives and a piece of the some of the yellowest journalism in years by MacLean's and its neo-con editor.

Svend "is" a thief. What else would you call someone that takes a $50K ring and doesn't pay for it? Svend being a thief is a fact. You can argue that he's a thief with a reason, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he is a thief. Realisticaly though, you can't compare what one says on an anonymous forum with the likes of Liberal party members.

The attacks aren't fair or productive no matter which party spews them, but it is the Conservatives here trying to make political hay with them. That's pretty much corrupt politicking.

Apparently, the left can make political hay on hearsay and baseless accustaions of a "hidden agenda" but god forbid anyone else makes politcal hay over facts. Read your own article that you posted Rev. It appears that the NDP are making "political hay" over this. How dare they participate in "corrupt politicking."

Harper has a well-earned reputation for being dictatorial and has been known to beat up on innocent chairs when he doesn't get his way.

Oh God. Where do dig up this stuff? It was Martin that forced his members to vote in favour of SSM and other issues as well. Funny how the only NDP member to vote against SSM, is no longer welcome on Laytons team.

Rev, you keep accusing me of trying to get people to vote Conservative even though I have never said such a thing once. On the other hand you have openly asked many members including myself to vote NDP. Strategic voting doesn't work and it was proven during the last election. Personally, I hope the left does vote strategically, because that will ensure more Conservatives win. I'm asking people to vote for the party that they believe in. Which in this case would be ANY party but the Liberals. Vote NDP, Conservative, Green, Marijuana party. I couldn't care less, but I'm tired of hearing the same old story that the Liberals are somehow our best option. That's not only ridiculous, it's pathetic.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Rev, I don't make posts just for your pleasure.

No shit?
:p


I know you're voting NDP but you have no problem advising other NDP supporters to vote Liberal in their riding if it will get them elected.

Apparently you are comprehension-challenged in your reading ability. I know a lady who teaches adult literacy...perhaps I could put you in touch with her.

I've repeatedly said that if people are considering voting strategically that they check to see who the race is really between so they don't split the vote by casting a ballot for a Liberal who is destined to be an also-ran no matter what. I've also said that I don't agree with strategic voting, but understand why some people do it.

Really? Do you have any proof of that? Or are you going to post something that was said 18 years ago, or really has nothing to do with the Conservatives party. The fact is the Liberals are FAR worse at mud slinging than the Conservatives could ever hope to be.

Like I've said several times, Conservative supporters were pushing this bit of racist slander about Olivia Chow during the last election. If you want, I'll point you in the general direction in a PM, but I have no intention of posting links to the sites that I'm referring to and I'm not likely to dig up exact posts from over a year ago.

Following the plumbers' creed, "Shit flows down, payday's on Friday," and noting the fact that most of these people aren't bright enough to come up with such a thing by themselves, it becomes pretty clear that it started someplace within the Conservative party.

That's rather rich don't you think? This is like the third time this election alone that the Liberals have been caught making defamatory racist or bigoted remarks. You look at it as par for the course but I look at it as unprecidented arrogance. They actually believe that it's their right to govern and they should be able to say "anything" and "steal" as much money as they want.

It's no more arrogant than Stephen Harper bringing up his bigoted stance on same-sex marriage or refusing to endorse the deal that Martin swung with natives.

The Conservatives, including sitting MPs, have a documented history of racist statements.

That doesn't make the Liberals right when they do the same thing, but it does make the Conservatives hypocrites when they yak about it.

Svend "is" a thief.

Still pushing that, are you? Vic Toews broke election laws. Stockwell "Doris" Day tried to illegally influence a court case. Stephen Harper sued the government in an attempt to allow his rich buddies to corrupt our democratic process.

I'll trust Svend with my jewellry. I don't trust any of those three with our democracy though. They haven't sought treatment and are far too likely to re-offend.

Apparently, the left can make political hay on hearsay and baseless accustaions of a "hidden agenda" but god forbid anyone else makes politcal hay over facts. Read your own article that you posted Rev. It appears that the NDP are making "political hay" over this. How dare they participate in "corrupt politicking."

The slur was a direct attack on the NDP and it's members. We have every right to talk about it.

Oh God. Where do dig up this stuff?

The dictatorial part from listening to what Conservative Party insiders say. The chair part from watching the Conservative convention on TV.

It was Martin that forced his members to vote in favour of SSM and other issues as well. Funny how the only NDP member to vote against SSM, is no longer welcome on Laytons team.

Martin allowed all non-cabinet ministers to vote as they pleased. Bev Desjarlais was allowed to run for nomination but she lost in a democratic vote. Niki Ashton won the candidacy. So much for Desjarlais' claim that she was reflecting the view of her constituents.

Unlike Stephen Harper, Jack Layton doesn't refuse to sign the nomination papers of candidates who disagree with him.

Rev, you keep accusing me of trying to get people to vote Conservative even though I have never said such a thing once.

Pedantry is just another way of hiding from the truth, Breakthrough. The fact is that you've taken every opportunity to support the Conservatives and denigrate the other parties. That is, whether you say it outright or not, trying to convince others to vote Conservative.


On the other hand you have openly asked many members including myself to vote NDP.

And I'll continue to. Honestly. Without hiding behind pedantry.


Strategic voting doesn't work and it was proven during the last election. Personally, I hope the left does vote strategically, because that will ensure more Conservatives win.

Considering some of the races in BC and Saskatchewan, the NDP are as likely to take seats from the Conservatives as the Liberals. Where strategic voting hurt us was as much in ridings where the fight was between NDP and Conservative candidates as anyplace else.

I'm asking people to vote for the party that they believe in. Which in this case would be ANY party but the Liberals. Vote NDP, Conservative, Green, Marijuana party. I couldn't care less, but I'm tired of hearing the same old story that the Liberals are somehow our best option. That's not only ridiculous, it's pathetic.

Two things. If your precious Conservatives would have supported PR the last time around, you wouldn't be having this problem now. If Harper wasn't so scary, the Liberals wouldn't have such success in painting him as such.
 

Breakthrough2006

Electoral Member
Dec 2, 2005
172
0
16
Apparently you are comprehension-challenged in your reading ability. I know a lady who teaches adult literacy...perhaps I could put you in touch with her.

No need Rev. I would argue that those that need to personally attack or slander others is the one with comprehension and reading disability.

I've repeatedly said that if people are considering voting strategically that they check to see who the race is really between so they don't split the vote by casting a ballot for a Liberal who is destined to be an also-ran no matter what. I've also said that I don't agree with strategic voting, but understand why some people do it.

You don't agree with it but condone is anyway. Do you not fathom the fact that every NDP vote that goes Liberal is taking money out of NDP coffers and placing into Liberal coffers. Most people couldn't even name the four party leaders and you want them to research to see who is winning in their local polls and vote accordingly.

Like I've said several times, Conservative supporters were pushing this bit of racist slander about Olivia Chow during the last election. If you want, I'll point you in the general direction in a PM, but I have no intention of posting links to the sites that I'm referring to and I'm not likely to dig up exact posts from over a year ago.

So you got nothing. Thanks.

Following the plumbers' creed, "Shit flows down, payday's on Friday," and noting the fact that most of these people aren't bright enough to come up with such a thing by themselves, it becomes pretty clear that it started someplace within the Conservative party.

More conspiracy theories?

It's no more arrogant than Stephen Harper bringing up his bigoted stance on same-sex marriage

Trying to compare a Liberal who degrades gays and Chinese on his website with someone who is promoting a free vote in parliament is pathetic.

That doesn't make the Liberals right when they do the same thing, but it does make the Conservatives hypocrites when they yak about it.

Which makes you a hypocrit for chastising the Conservatives for something the Liberals do on a regular basis. Your comment would also make the NDP hypocritcal since they are "yaking" about it also.

I'll trust Svend with my jewellry. I don't trust any of those three with our democracy though. They haven't sought treatment and are far too likely to re-offend.

Speaks volumes not only about your beliefs, but of your values. The NDP actively supporting a criminal would make them just as corrupt as the rest of the parties you denounce. Saying otherwise would make you a hypocrit.

The slur was a direct attack on the NDP and it's members. We have every right to talk about it.

Now you're changing your story from "anyone" that brings this up is making political "hay" to it was directed at us so we have a right to make political hay. :roll:

Martin allowed all non-cabinet ministers to vote as they pleased. Bev Desjarlais was allowed to run for nomination but she lost in a democratic vote. Niki Ashton won the candidacy. So much for Desjarlais' claim that she was reflecting the view of her constituents.

It is a well known "fact" that Martin strong armed his members into voting in favour of SSM. You either have a "short" or "selective" memory. Which is it?

Pedantry is just another way of hiding from the truth, Breakthrough. The fact is that you've taken every opportunity to support the Conservatives and denigrate the other parties. That is, whether you say it outright or not, trying to convince others to vote Conservative.

That is a typical response from you and Liberal supporters. Forget what I say and do as fact, you know my "hidden agenda" that I never speak of. Paranoid are we?

Attention ALL board members. DO NOT VOTE CONSERVATIVE!!!

Happy now Rev. I already know that a major portion of the members on this site are NDP voters. That will likely vote Liberal because of the likes of you that would consider a Liberal victory an NDP victory. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. As long as you NDPers are content with bringing up the rear with your 20 - 25 seats that is all you will ever be. You call yourself an NDP supporter but you do far more to hurt the NDP than any Conservative or Liberal. How many millions of dollars have poured into the Liberal coffers that were originally destined for the NDP?

And I'll continue to. Honestly. Without hiding behind pedantry.

Acknowledging this fact while denouncing me just proves that you're a hypocrit.

Considering some of the races in BC and Saskatchewan, the NDP are as likely to take seats from the Conservatives as the Liberals. Where strategic voting hurt us was as much in ridings where the fight was between NDP and Conservative candidates as anyplace else.

Whatever you say. Vote split away and thanks for the extra seats.

Two things. If your precious Conservatives would have supported PR the last time around, you wouldn't be having this problem now. If Harper wasn't so scary, the Liberals wouldn't have such success in painting him as such.

Harper scary? Only according the Liberals and their propoganda machine. The CPC is left of the Democrats in the US yet somehow they are scary. Give your head a shake.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
No need Rev. I would argue that those that need to personally attack or slander others is the one with comprehension and reading disability.

Argue whatever you want. You'll still be wrong. You either lack comprehension or are purposely misrepresenting what I said. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

You don't agree with it but condone is anyway.

See? Misrepresenting what I said again. I don't condone it, but I'm not foolish enough to think it doesn't happen, so I accept it and address the very real problem it creates.



So you got nothing. Thanks.

I've got plenty. You're just afraid to look for it.

More conspiracy theories?

Nope, just an understanding of how things work. When unimaginative dullards who normally parrot things from a certain source suddenly come up with something that seems original, it generally comes from the regular source in a less public way.

Trying to compare a Liberal who degrades gays and Chinese on his website with someone who is promoting a free vote in parliament is pathetic.

No, those who support Harper's bigotry and try to hide behind democracy without understanding that democracy includes protecting minorities are pathetic.

Which makes you a hypocrit for chastising the Conservatives for something the Liberals do on a regular basis. Your comment would also make the NDP hypocritcal since they are "yaking" (sic) about it also.

That's just childish. I chastise anybody who takes part in petty bigotry and racism. When that bigotry and racism is directed at the NDP and its members, the NDP and its members have a right to comment. Those who are supporting a party full of racists and bigots have no such right.

Speaks volumes not only about your beliefs, but of your values.

Yes it does. I understand that people can mistakes, especially when they are mentally ill. I also understand that people who try to undermine our democracy do it for their own personal reasons and are not to be trusted after their original infractions.

I value democracy over material goods though. It's kind of sad that you would consider that a negative thing.

The NDP actively supporting a criminal would make them just as corrupt as the rest of the parties you denounce. Saying otherwise would make you a hypocrit.

They aren't supporting a criminal though. They are supporting a man who had an illness and sought treatment for it. No different than your many MPs with cancer who missed a lot of work because of their illness. I don't fault them, why should I fault Svend?

Now you're changing your story from "anyone" that brings this up is making political "hay" to it was directed at us so we have a right to make political hay. :roll:

Nah, that was my point all along. You missed it because you didn't like it, so I kept spelling it out for you in increasingly simple terms until you got it.

I'll try to type more slowly for you if it will help.

It is a well known "fact" that Martin strong armed his members into voting in favour of SSM. You either have a "short" or "selective" memory. Which is it?

It is a well known fact that Paul Martin allowed all non-cabinet members to vote their conscience. 40 of them voted with the anti-rights people across the way. Martin should have, if he truly considered this a matter of supporting the Charter, taken a much harder stance with his MPs.

That is a typical response from you and Liberal supporters. Forget what I say and do as fact, you know my "hidden agenda" that I never speak of. Paranoid are we?

Not at all. You are here to preach for the Conservatives. You've made that very clear. Your agenda isn't hidden at all. Trying to deny that agenda is about as silly as it gets though.

Acknowledging this fact while denouncing me just proves that you're a hypocrit.

For what? Being honest? Only a Conservative would claim that honesty was hypocritical.

Whatever you say. Vote split away and thanks for the extra seats.

Apparently you didn't understand what I said. I tried to use small words, but I must have typed them too fast for you.



Harper scary? Only according the Liberals and their propoganda machine.

No, according to things he's said and done over the course of his career. That's the problem with Harper...we've all heard the positions he consistently took until he decided he wanted to be a real boy. Now he's flip-flopped on almost everything. Either he was scary before, or he was lying. Now he's either lying or still scary.

The Liberals, for all of their faults, never made Harper and the Conservative MPs say all those things. They did so of their own free will.

The CPC is left of the Democrats in the US yet somehow they are scary. Give your head a shake.

Is that why the CPC had a whack of representatives at the Republican National Convention? Because they're left of the Democrats? Is that why Harper has parroted the Republican position on everything from Iraq to same-sex marriage? Is that why he backs BMD and deep integration? Is that why he's against harm reduction programs and for draconian drug laws?
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Breakthrough was trying to pound away on another non-fact before...that Bev Desjarlais had been kicked out of the NDP. The only discipline Desjarlais suffered was being removed as an official critic. She was not removed from caucus and she was not prevented from running for the candidacy. She knew the consequences before she chose to vote against her own party on a matter of human rights.

Her candidacy was challenged by Niki Ashton and three others while Desjarlais was still in caucus. The results of the vote for the candidacy were:
Niki Ashton: 780
Bev Desjarlais: 470
Dan Reagan: 124
Sandra Delaronde: 25
Sam Voisey: 5

After losing the nomination, Desjarlais chose to leave the party and sit as an independent. At the same she did that, she announced that she'd be running as an independent in the next election.

It would be nice if those who choose to try to bash the NDP on this issue, and I include the Gob and Snail and other alleged media outlets in that, would at least take the time to learn the facts.
 

Breakthrough2006

Electoral Member
Dec 2, 2005
172
0
16
Argue whatever you want. You'll still be wrong.

You're debating skills are those of a child. Dimissing someone as always wrong is a tact of the feeble minded.

See? Misrepresenting what I said again. I don't condone it, but I'm not foolish enough to think it doesn't happen, so I accept it and address the very real problem it creates.

"I don't condone it" and "I accept it" are in the same sentence. I have seen you many times on this site "preach" to people to vote Liberal or NDP, depending on which member has a better chance to win. Unfortuantely for the NDP, they have people such as yourself carrying their flag. The NDP gets burned out of millions of dollars because of strategic voting. You're kidding yourself if you think that there are just as many Liberals voting NDP as NDPers voting Liberal. I always here Martin talk about strategic voting and never hear Layton. Hmmmm? You wish to believe that it's a two way street but it isn't.

I've got plenty. You're just afraid to look for it.

You can't back up a single fallacy that you call a fact. Nuff said.

No, those who support Harper's bigotry and try to hide behind democracy without understanding that democracy includes protecting minorities are pathetic.

Protecting minorities? I don't see the NDP or Liberal party supporting a motion to recognise polygamists. Why is that Rev? There are many more polygamists in the world than there are gays. There are even some religions that promote it. I guess everyone is equal, but some are "more" equal than others.

That's just childish. I chastise anybody who takes part in petty bigotry and racism. When that bigotry and racism is directed at the NDP and its members, the NDP and its members have a right to comment. Those who are supporting a party full of racists and bigots have no such right.

A party full of racists? I guess you have no proof of that either and that I should just take your word for it as usual. Between comparing Chow to a dog because of her Chinese ethicity, calling Layton an asshole, making fun of gays, making fun of Hindu Indians, comparing Canadian parents to welfare cases who would blow any new money on "beer and popcorn, derogatory comments about disabled people, I would just as well assume that you are talking about the Liberal Party of Canada when you speak of racism and bigottry.

Yes it does. I understand that people can mistakes, especially when they are mentally ill.

Great. You admit he's mentally ill, yet he is perfectly fit to help run the country. :roll:

I value democracy over material goods though. It's kind of sad that you would consider that a negative thing.

Looks like Svend would disagree with you. His actions prove to me that he values material goods over democracy and I do consider that a negative thing. Only a fool would think otherwise.

They aren't supporting a criminal though. They are supporting a man who had an illness and sought treatment for it. No different than your many MPs with cancer who missed a lot of work because of their illness. I don't fault them, why should I fault Svend?

Do you even read your posts before submitting them? You are comparing a thief to a cancer patiant and you are saying that they are no different. You're a lost cause.

Nah, that was my point all along. You missed it because you didn't like it, so I kept spelling it out for you in increasingly simple terms until you got it.

I'll try to type more slowly for you if it will help.

More political spin. You should try to "think" more slowly.


It is a well known fact that Paul Martin allowed all non-cabinet members to vote their conscience. 40 of them voted with the anti-rights people across the way.


Simple legislative math favours passage. This will not be a truly free vote in the House of Commons, even though Prime Minister Paul Martin had promised it would be. Some 70 Liberals will be forced to vote the party line or face expulsion from their various posts. Cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, whips and caucus officers will all be subject to strict party discipline.

Not at all. You are here to preach for the Conservatives. You've made that very clear. Your agenda isn't hidden at all. Trying to deny that agenda is about as silly as it gets though.

This comment wouldn't so pathetic if it weren't so comical. I've been a long time Liberal supporter voting Conservative in 2006. You're the preacher, remember Reverend? Everyone here is taking sides for one party or another. If they didn't you wouldn't have much of a board now would you? How do I know that you are voting NDP Rev if you hadn't made it perfectly clear for all to see?Thanks for pointing out the obvious. :roll: Hypocrasy at it's finest.

By the way Rev. Is there a certian amount of posts that one has to make before one shares in your privelages? You go on endlessly about "facts" yet you wouldn't know a fact if it fell off a tree and hit you on the melon.

For what? Being honest? Only a Conservative would claim that honesty was hypocritical.

You have yet to be honest to anyone much less yourself.

Apparently you didn't understand what I said. I tried to use small words, but I must have typed them too fast for you.

Your attempt to be humouress is even more pathetic than your attempts to formulate sentences.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
You're debating skills are those of a child. Dimissing someone as always wrong is a tact of the feeble minded.

Purposely twisting my words to fit your own narrow agenda is the act of a fool. So is trying to misrepresent a riding race that is a matter of public record.

"I don't condone it" and "I accept it" are in the same sentence.

Yes they are. If you get out your Canadian Oxford Dictionary, you'll find that they have different meanings. Is English your second language, perhaps? I keep searching for a reason for your lack of comprehension.



I have seen you many times on this site "preach" to people to vote Liberal or NDP, depending on which member has a better chance to win. Unfortuantely for the NDP, they have people such as yourself carrying their flag. The NDP gets burned out of millions of dollars because of strategic voting. You're kidding yourself if you think that there are just as many Liberals voting NDP as NDPers voting Liberal. I always here Martin talk about strategic voting and never hear Layton. Hmmmm? You wish to believe that it's a two way street but it isn't.

If a Liberal has a chance of winning and an NDP has no chance, I do think people should choose the Liberal over the Conservative. The Liberals have a history of being able to cooperate with the NDP, likely because they steal half their campaign planks from us so can be forced to keep their own promises. The Conservatives have no such record.

You can't back up a single fallacy that you call a fact. Nuff said.

And you're so afraid of the truth that you haven't sent me a PM asking for the addresses.

Protecting minorities? I don't see the NDP or Liberal party supporting a motion to recognise polygamists. Why is that Rev? There are many more polygamists in the world than there are gays. There are even some religions that promote it. I guess everyone is equal, but some are "more" equal than others.

Polygamists are not a minority. They have a choice. Nobody, despite what the bigots say, chooses to be gay. The old homophobic trick of trying to compare gays to polygamists, pedophiles and pederasts doesn't play well here, Breakthrough. Not enough half-witted rednecks in the crowd.

A party full of racists? I guess you have no proof of that either and that I should just take your word for it as usual.

I already posted bunch of quotes by Conservatives on that. You might want to ask Colpy where they are.

Between comparing Chow to a dog because of her Chinese ethicity, calling Layton an asshole, making fun of gays, making fun of Hindu Indians, comparing Canadian parents to welfare cases who would blow any new money on "beer and popcorn, derogatory comments about disabled people, I would just as well assume that you are talking about the Liberal Party of Canada when you speak of racism and bigottry(sic).

Liberals, Conservatives. A racist is a racist and you are what you is.

Great. You admit he's mentally ill, yet he is perfectly fit to help run the country.

He sought treatment. His illness had no apparent effect on his ability to act as a Member of Parliament even before he sought treatment. Has Vic Toews sought treatment for his compulsion to break election laws? Has Stockwell Day sought treatment for his mania for interfering in court cases?



Do you even read your posts before submitting them? You are comparing a thief to a cancer patiant and you are saying that they are no different. You're a lost cause.

I compared an illness to an illness. You are spewing over the top fluff based on your own deep-seated prejudices.

Simple legislative math favours passage. This will not be a truly free vote in the House of Commons, even though Prime Minister Paul Martin had promised it would be. Some 70 Liberals will be forced to vote the party line or face expulsion from their various posts. Cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, whips and caucus officers will all be subject to strict party discipline.

You really hate gay people don't you? Why is that? How unsure are you of your own sexuality?

Martin's mistake was not whipping the entire vote. It was a matter of human rights and upholding the charter.

This comment wouldn't so pathetic if it weren't so comical. I've been a long time Liberal supporter voting Conservative in 2006. You're the preacher, remember Reverend? Everyone here is taking sides for one party or another. If they didn't you wouldn't have much of a board now would you? How do I know that you are voting NDP Rev if you hadn't made it perfectly clear for all to see?Thanks for pointing out the obvious. :roll: Hypocrasy (sic) at it's (sic) finest.

By the way Rev. Is there a certian (sic) amount of posts that one has to make before one shares in your privelages(sic)? You go on endlessly about "facts" yet you wouldn't know a fact if it fell off a tree and hit you on the melon.

You came here to push the Conservatives. You deny it, but that's all you do here. I have a long history of supporting the NDP. I have never denied it and I don't try to hide it.

You have yet to apologise for your lie about the Bev Desjarlais issue.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I'm surprised a moderator hasn't intervened here. You both seem to be walking a fine line between debate, and mindlessly insulting eachother, lol. All due respect intended, of course.

Strategic Voting

If a citizen of Canada wishes to vote against a party, rather than voting for another, that is perfectly acceptable, and it is their right to do so, whether or not you happen to agree. If one, for example, wishes to prevent the Conservative Party from receiving a majority in the Commons, then they have every right to vote strategically on the basis of whom would be more likely to defeat the Conservative candidate in his or her riding.

A "Free Vote" on Same-sex Marriage

I agree that the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin would have had every right to "whip" the vote of his entire party on that issue. If the Prime Minister believed in good faith that the issue was a matter of human rights, then whipping the vote would have been his prerogative; a member of the Government, particularly a Minister of the Crown, should not accept a Minister's portfolio unless he or she is willing to unequivocally support the program of the Government; Cabinet solidarity is essential.

Homosexuality

I am gay. Hopefully this is the final time that I will need to re-iterate, on any forum, that it was not a personal choice. Believe me, I would not have elected to violate what was once considered the "social norm" had I been involved in the decision-making process.
 

Breakthrough2006

Electoral Member
Dec 2, 2005
172
0
16
Purposely twisting my words to fit your own narrow agenda is the act of a fool. So is trying to misrepresent a riding race that is a matter of public record.

I'm not twisting anything. You're words are there for all to see. You have turned your own posts into a pretzel from the amount of times you've twisted them. You're the one that claims that all my posts are simply "wrong" and you call me narrow minded. Go figure.

Yes they are. If you get out your Canadian Oxford Dictionary, you'll find that they have different meanings. Is English your second language, perhaps? I keep searching for a reason for your lack of comprehension.

So you may not condone stealing, but if everyone is doing it you will simply accept it? Nice.

If a Liberal has a chance of winning and an NDP has no chance, I do think people should choose the Liberal over the Conservative. The Liberals have a history of being able to cooperate with the NDP, likely because they steal half their campaign planks from us so can be forced to keep their own promises. The Conservatives have no such record.

Good for you. Enjoy your 15 seats. One day, you and the NDP might grow up to be a 25 seat powerhouse.

And you're so afraid of the truth that you haven't sent me a PM asking for the addresses.

Why would I need to PM you to get some proof of all the lies you're spewing? You can't provide it, because it doesn't exist anywhere but inside your head.

Polygamists are not a minority. They have a choice.

Apparently they "don't" have a choice. Are they allowed to practice their beliefs in Canada? For some it's a religious issue. Are you against the freedom for one to practice their religion now?

The old homophobic trick of trying to compare gays to polygamists

I'm not comparing them to anyone else. We are either "equal" or we are "not". If you deny their right, then you have no leg to stand on when accusing others of being against the Charter.

Liberals, Conservatives. A racist is a racist and you are what you is.

Apparently not to you. It's perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to be racist because not only do you condone it, but you encourage people to even vote for them even though you are an NDPer.

He sought treatment. His illness had no apparent effect on his ability to act as a Member of Parliament even before he sought treatment.

His illness caused him to steal a $50K ring. Can you guarantee that he will not have a relapse? What if he steals again? Will you believe his next story that he forgot to take his medication?

I compared an illness to an illness. You are spewing over the top fluff based on your own deep-seated prejudices.

Prejudice? You are prejudiced to anyone that doesn't think exactly like you. I am all for SSM. What I am against is the fallacy that somehow it goes against the Charter of Rights for anyone who speaks up about SSM. Elton John got married recently in England which does not allow SSM.

You really hate gay people don't you? Why is that? How unsure are you of your own sexuality?

Nice try to sway the topic. Ooooohhhh, I may be in the closet. Who cares if I'm even gay? If I'm gay, I'm gay, there's nothing to be ashamed about is there? I hope that wasn't a bigoted remark on your end.

Martin's mistake was not whipping the entire vote. It was a matter of human rights and upholding the charter.

Polygamists apparently don't have the same right.

You came here to push the Conservatives. You deny it, but that's all you do here. I have a long history of supporting the NDP. I have never denied it and I don't try to hide it.

Yawn. I have already made it clear that I'm voting Conservative. Accusing me of something that you take pride in makes you a hypocrit plain and simple.

You have yet to apologise for your lie about the Bev Desjarlais issue.

Which lie was that. I said the only person that voted against SSM in the NDP is no longer with the NDP. That's called a "fact" Rev.

If a citizen of Canada wishes to vote against a party, rather than voting for another, that is perfectly acceptable, and it is their right to do so, whether or not you happen to agree. If one, for example, wishes to prevent the Conservative Party from receiving a majority in the Commons, then they have every right to vote strategically on the basis of whom would be more likely to defeat the Conservative candidate in his or her riding.

That makes sense however that only works in a perfect world. During the last election, strategic voting had the opposite effect. Also, it's NDP votes that go Liberal, very few go the other way. Since our parties get $1,70 per vote, this is taking money and power away from the NDP. If this continues, the NDP will forever be the Liberal farm team.

I agree that the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin would have had every right to "whip" the vote of his entire party on that issue. If the Prime Minister believed in good faith that the issue was a matter of human rights, then whipping the vote would have been his prerogative; a member of the Government, particularly a Minister of the Crown, should not accept a Minister's portfolio unless he or she is willing to unequivocally support the program of the Government; Cabinet solidarity is essential.

Whipping a vote is never a good thing. What if it was the other way around and Martin was againt SSM while the majority of his party was for it? Would you still feel the same way?

I am gay. Hopefully this is the final time that I will need to re-iterate, on any forum, that it was not a personal choice. Believe me, I would not have elected to violate what was once considered the "social norm" had I been involved in the decision-making process.

There is nothing to be ashamed about whether it was a personal choice or not. Rev likes to make up fairytales that those against SSM are all evil, redneck bigots. I am totally for SSM. I hate that certain parties (mostly Liberals) are trying to score political points about an issue which has nothing to do with the Charter of Rights. Banning gays would be against the charter. Banning gays having cival unions would be against the charter. Calling a "cival union" a "marriage" even though 100% of all the perks of marriages comes along with a cival union is NOT against the Charter of Rights. It's a wedge issue for the Liberals and they twist the facts to make everyone who disagrees with them "bigots" A la Rev.

If someone called my "marriage" a cival union but changed none of the laws that come along with it and it makes no difference in my life and I'm still treated equally, why would I care? It's essentially the exact same thing.

The religious people believe that the term "marriage" is sacred.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
:roll: :roll: :roll: I guess I'll quit feeding this troll. He only responds to my posts, so maybe he'll take his lies and obfuscations elsewhere.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Before I do I'd like to clear one thing up though. Breakthrough said:
It was Martin that forced his members to vote in favour of SSM and other issues as well. Funny how the only NDP member to vote against SSM, is no longer welcome on Laytons team.

The implication, one the Conseratives have been pushing hard, is that Desjarlais was kicked out of the NDP. It isn't true. I posted the truth earlier, but here it is again:
Breakthrough was trying to pound away on another non-fact before...that Bev Desjarlais had been kicked out of the NDP. The only discipline Desjarlais suffered was being removed as an official critic. She was not removed from caucus and she was not prevented from running for the candidacy. She knew the consequences before she chose to vote against her own party on a matter of human rights.

Her candidacy was challenged by Niki Ashton and three others while Desjarlais was still in caucus. The results of the vote for the candidacy were:
Niki Ashton: 780
Bev Desjarlais: 470
Dan Reagan: 124
Sandra Delaronde: 25
Sam Voisey: 5

After losing the nomination, Desjarlais chose to leave the party and sit as an independent. At the same she did that, she announced that she'd be running as an independent in the next election.

It would be nice if those who choose to try to bash the NDP on this issue, and I include the Gob and Snail and other alleged media outlets in that, would at least take the time to learn the facts.

The reason the Conservative trolls like to pound away on the Desjarlais issue is not because they want her seat. They are a non-factor in that riding, largely because of the racism and anti-worker tone inherent in Harper's party. Just like Robinson, they like to pound away on Desjarlais because they are trying to protect seats that are being threatened by the NDP in Saskatchewan and BC.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Strategic Voting

If a citizen of Canada wishes to vote against a party, rather than voting for another, that is perfectly acceptable, and it is their right to do so, whether or not you happen to agree. If one, for example, wishes to prevent the Conservative Party from receiving a majority in the Commons, then they have every right to vote strategically on the basis of whom would be more likely to defeat the Conservative candidate in his or her riding.

That's exactly right, FiveParadox. I happen to think that it's absolutely the wrong thing to do, that people should vote on issues, but that's not what happens. Because of that, I encourage people who are voting strategically to educate themselves about their riding and vote in a way that will do some good.

A "Free Vote" on Same-sex Marriage

I agree that the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin would have had every right to "whip" the vote of his entire party on that issue. If the Prime Minister believed in good faith that the issue was a matter of human rights, then whipping the vote would have been his prerogative; a member of the Government, particularly a Minister of the Crown, should not accept a Minister's portfolio unless he or she is willing to unequivocally support the program of the Government; Cabinet solidarity is essential.

That's especially true since most people in Canada vote for a party or a leader, not a local candidate. SSM was an issue in the last election, so people know where the Liberals stood. That forty of them voted against it is Paul Martin's problem.



Homosexuality

I am gay. Hopefully this is the final time that I will need to re-iterate, on any forum, that it was not a personal choice. Believe me, I would not have elected to violate what was once considered the "social norm" had I been involved in the decision-making process.

I've never heard a single gay person say that they felt they had any choice in the matter. All of the latest science points to homosexuality being a matter of genetics and chemistry. To compare it to things like polygamy is insulting to anybody who has put any thought into it.
 

Breakthrough2006

Electoral Member
Dec 2, 2005
172
0
16
All of the latest science points to homosexuality being a matter of genetics and chemistry. To compare it to things like polygamy is insulting to anybody who has put any thought into it.

You should educate yourself on matters before making "bigoted" remarks. Once again, your hypocrasy reigns supreme. Calling others bigots when you make bigoted remarks for all to see.

Globally, Polygamy Is Commonplace
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Sunday, September 20, 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polygamy may be abhorrent to most Americans, but in the global community it is common, normal and accepted.

There are many plural marriages in Africa, the Middle East and in Asia, said Ginat, professor of social and culture anthropology at the University of Haifa.

Many American Indian tribes allow polygamy; several experimental Christian groups practice it. And, of course, there are those famous offshoots of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Polygamy is the most prevalent in Muslim countries where there are no laws against it, and in communities that are more traditional and agrarian.

For example, it is common and growing among the 180,000 Bedouin of Israel. It is also frequent among some Mediterranean Jews living in Yemen.


here is the rest of the article..........

http://www.polygamy.com/Other-Globally-Polygamy-Is-Commonplace.htm

I guess I'll quit feeding this troll. He only responds to my posts, so maybe he'll take his lies and obfuscations elsewhere

Just like a school yard bully, to back away when confronted by someone that's not intimidated with your propoganda and lies.

There is only one thing worse than a bigot and that's a hypocritical bigot that doesn't even recognise that he's a bigot.